Page Range | 26979-27104 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 27055 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-521); Comment Request | |
82 FR 27079 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 27082 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 27092 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 27085 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 27021 - Cumene Sulfonic Acid and Its Ammonium, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium and Zinc Salts; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
82 FR 27063 - Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Petition for Review; Reopening of Comment Period | |
82 FR 27031 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska: Adoption Updates and Rule Revisions | |
82 FR 26989 - Regulatory Program Fees and Water Charges Rates | |
82 FR 27080 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; A Study of Customer Satisfaction With Five Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Technical Assistance (TA) Centers | |
82 FR 27081 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB Approvals | |
82 FR 27079 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act | |
82 FR 27059 - California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Application To Amend License and Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
82 FR 27061 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 27060 - DTE Electric Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date | |
82 FR 27055 - Solar Star Oregon II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 27060 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project | |
82 FR 27060 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
82 FR 27063 - Next Meeting of the North American Numbering Council | |
82 FR 27037 - Information Collection Request; Transfer of Farm Records Between Counties | |
82 FR 27013 - Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
82 FR 27014 - Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
82 FR 27011 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
82 FR 27071 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Application and Reporting | |
82 FR 27103 - Meeting of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 27083 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
82 FR 27083 - National Council on the Arts 191st Meeting | |
82 FR 26990 - Examination and Copying of PBGC Records | |
82 FR 27079 - Notice of Extended Opportunity To Comment on Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
82 FR 27101 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on Providing Assistance for the Recovery and Accounting for Missing United States Government Personnel | |
82 FR 27102 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With the Provision of Support for the Conduct of Operations | |
82 FR 27101 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on Inter-European Air Forces Academy Programs | |
82 FR 27102 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on State Partnership Programs | |
82 FR 27101 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on State NGO/IO Participation in Regional Centers Activities | |
82 FR 27102 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on Multinational Centers of Excellence | |
82 FR 27101 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on Electronic Training Materials | |
82 FR 27102 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Secretary of Defense on Inter-American Air Forces Academy Programs | |
82 FR 27100 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Payment of Personnel Expenses Necessary for Theater Security Cooperation | |
82 FR 27100 - Delegation of Authority To Concur With Exchanges of Defense Personnel | |
82 FR 27036 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27067 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (AOA-HFAP) for Continued CMS Approval of Its Ambulatory Surgical Center Accreditation Program | |
82 FR 27042 - Promoting Stakeholder Action Against Botnets and Other Automated Threats | |
82 FR 27064 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension | |
82 FR 27036 - Animal Disease Traceability System; Additional Public Meetings | |
82 FR 27039 - Foreign-Trade Zone 119-Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc., Subzone 119I, Invitation for Public Comment on Preliminary Recommendation | |
82 FR 27039 - Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 | |
82 FR 27041 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Correction to the Initiation Notice of the 2016-2017 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
82 FR 27046 - CPSC Workshop on Recall Effectiveness | |
82 FR 27099 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Oklahoma | |
82 FR 27027 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Elephant Trunk Flex Access Area to General Category Individual Fishing Quota Scallop Vessels | |
82 FR 27100 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania | |
82 FR 27100 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
82 FR 27073 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
82 FR 27072 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
82 FR 27046 - Acceptance of Group Application | |
82 FR 27062 - Integrated System Rate Schedules | |
82 FR 27057 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 27056 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 27038 - Lassen County Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 27015 - Safety Zones; Recurring Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
82 FR 27011 - Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Mamala Bay, Oahu, Hawaii-Hokulea Arrival | |
82 FR 27054 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of the ESEA Title VI Indian Education LEA Grants Program | |
82 FR 27066 - Availability of Draft Toxicological Profiles: Antimony; 2,4-D; Molybdenum; Silica | |
82 FR 27075 - Large Residential Washers; Institution and Scheduling of Safeguard Investigation and Determination That the Investigation Is Extraordinarily Complicated | |
82 FR 27075 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain | |
82 FR 27078 - Certain Consumer Electronic Devices, Including Televisions, Gaming Consoles, Mobile Phones and Tablets, and Network-Enabled DVD and Blu-Ray Players; Institution of Investigation | |
82 FR 27091 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Stress Testing Framework (Market Risk) | |
82 FR 27090 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Rules Concerning Use of Clearing Fund for Losses, Liabilities or Temporary Needs for Funds Incident to the Clearance and Settlement Business and Make Other Related Changes | |
82 FR 27093 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, To Adopt the Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements and the Clearing Agency Capital Replenishment Plan | |
82 FR 27094 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, To Adopt the Clearing Agency Liquidity Risk Management Framework | |
82 FR 27096 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule To Establish an Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) | |
82 FR 27094 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Chapter 21 From the ISE Rulebook | |
82 FR 27092 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 406, Long Term Option Contracts | |
82 FR 27075 - Minor Boundary Revision at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore | |
82 FR 27089 - Notice of the American Arbitration Association's Response to Public Comments Related to the Pending Request for Approval of an Alternative Arbitration Procedure | |
82 FR 27068 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
82 FR 27071 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences Amended; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 27070 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 27071 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 27069 - Office of the Director; Notice of Charter Renewal | |
82 FR 27044 - Commission Statement Concerning a Request for an Interpretation as to Whether a Particular Agreement Is a Swap, Security-Based Swap, or Mixed Swap | |
82 FR 27091 - Commission Statement Concerning a Request for an Interpretation as to Whether a Particular Agreement Is a Swap, Security-Based Swap, or Mixed Swap | |
82 FR 27088 - The American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility in Piketon, Ohio | |
82 FR 27085 - Superseded or Outdated Generic Communications | |
82 FR 27087 - U.S. Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
82 FR 27084 - U.S. Department of Energy; Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
82 FR 27086 - U.S. Department of Energy; Idaho Spent Fuel Facility Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
82 FR 27047 - Applications for New Awards; High School Career and Technical Education Teacher Pathway Initiative | |
82 FR 27016 - Procedural Regulations for the Copyright Royalty Board Regarding Electronic Filing of Claims | |
82 FR 27014 - Multiple Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in Captain of the Port New York Zone | |
82 FR 26992 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
82 FR 26987 - Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways; Eastern United States | |
82 FR 26979 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 26985 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 27038 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 26982 - Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines | |
82 FR 27045 - Commission Agenda and Priorities; Notice of Hearing | |
82 FR 27028 - Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Establishment of Assessment Rates | |
82 FR 27102 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Update and Renewal of the Bank Secrecy Act Designation of Exempt Person Report | |
82 FR 27033 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening the Comment Periods for Five Proposed Rules |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southwestern Power Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Wage and Hour Division
Copyright Royalty Board
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Internal Revenue Service
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 rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-05-32 for all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100 turbofan engines. AD 2014-05-32 required one-time eddy current inspection (ECI) of affected engines with certain diffuser and high-pressure turbine (HPT) cases installed. AD 2014-05-32 also required a fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) of the diffuser case rear flange and the HPT case front flange. This AD requires additional repetitive, on-wing ECI inspections. This AD was prompted by the manufacturer determining through analysis that the inspections required by AD 2014-05-32 are not adequate to maintain safety for certain diffuser cases. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 18, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 18, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-05-32, Amendment 39-17804 (79 FR 17856, March 31, 2014), (“AD 2014-05-32”). AD 2014-05-32 applied to all PW PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100 turbofan engines. 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.
PW, Delta Airlines (Delta), FedEx Express (FedEx), and United Airlines (United) requested that the NPRM to supersede AD 2014-05-32 be withdrawn and the requirements of the NPRM be included in a new AD that does not supersede AD 2014-05-32. Delta indicated that the NPRM applies only to a sub-population of diffuser cases. Delta recommended that further field data be captured to validate PW's analysis prior to issuance of the final rule AD. PW, Delta, and United added that the repetitive ECIs introduced by this AD are different from those mandated by AD 2014-05-32.
We disagree. AD 2014-05-32 and this AD address the same safety issue, which is cracking and rupture of the diffuser case M-flange. Therefore, AD 2014-05-32 and this AD have the same applicability. Differences in compliance time reflect different levels of risk associated with different sub-populations of diffuser cases. We therefore find it appropriate that this AD replaces AD 2014-05-32. We are, however, revising the Previous Credit section of this AD to allow credit for ECIs of the diffuser case M-flange performed using either PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013; and PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 1, dated July 13, 2016.
PW requested that the F117-PW-100 turbofan engine be excluded from the applicability of this AD. PW indicated that the F117 engine meets all safety requirements and does not warrant a service bulletin or an AD. PW asked that if this AD does not remove the F117 engine from applicability, then this AD should clarify that the repetitive ECIs in
We partially agree. We agree that the original build F117-PW-100 engines used only cast material M-flanges and, therefore, are not susceptible to the safety issue responsible for this AD. We note, however, that an F117 diffuser case flange can be repaired using the wrought material making these flanges susceptible to the unsafe condition represented by this AD. We, therefore, find it necessary to include the F117-PW-100 engine in the applicability of this AD.
We disagree with removing the F117 engine from the recurring ECIs in paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this AD since these inspections apply to all applicable engines.
We disagree with referencing PW SB F117 72-410, Revision 1, dated December 17, 2013, as this is not an equivalent instruction for the repetitive inspections of this AD. We did not change this AD.
PW, Delta, FedEx, and UPS requested that the re-inspection required by paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this AD be changed to occur “within 2,500 cycles since last ECI or last piece-part FPI inspection, whichever occurs last” instead of “within 2,500 cycles since last ECI or last piece-part FPI inspection, whichever occurs first” as proposed. The commenters indicated that using the criteria “whichever occurs first” would not allow the repetitive inspection interval to be reset following an ECI inspection. PW also commented that the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this AD should reference PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016.
We partially agree. We agree that changing the criteria in paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this AD to “whichever occurs last” maintains an acceptable level of safety and changed this paragraph accordingly. Paragraph (f)(4) of this AD references direct compliance in accordance with PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016. There is no need to repeat that instruction in paragraph (f)(4)(ii).
Delta and United requested that the initial inspection intervals be increased. Delta also requested that the initial inspection threshold of 5,500 cycles since new or since M-flange replacement, as specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i)(A) of this AD, be extended to 6,500 cycles since new. United asked that the initial inspection threshold in this paragraph (f)(4)(i)(C) be aligned with the service information, which provides an inspection interval of 1,500 cycles for engines with more than 2,500 cycles since last engine shop visit.
We partially agree. We agree that closer alignment of the initial inspection threshold with PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 1, dated July 13, 2016, maintains an acceptable level of safety. We therefore increased the initial inspection threshold in paragraph (f)(4)(i)(C) of this AD from 500 cycles to 1,000 cycles from the effective date of this AD. We do not, however, have data to support increasing the interval from 5,500 to 6,500 cycles since new. Therefore, we did not change paragraph (f)(4)(i)(A) of this AD.
PW and Delta requested that we revise sections in the preamble of the NPRM, particularly the “Summary” and the “Actions Since AD 2014-05-32 Was Issued” sections, to clarify that the “subpopulation identified by the manufacturer” refers to diffuser cases manufactured or repaired using wrought flanges. Also, PW and Delta want to clarify that repaired flanges cannot be distinguished from non-repaired since they share the same part number.
We partially agree. The summary of an AD is not intended to provide the level of detail requested by the commenters, but we added a reference to clarify that we are referring to a certain population of diffuser cases. The “Actions Since AD 2014-05-32 Was Issued” section does not exist in a final rule AD, but we clarified in the Discussion sections of this AD that we are referring to diffuser cases that incorporate a wrought M-flange. We also added a statement in the Discussion to note that repaired flanges cannot be distinguished from non-repaired flanges.
PW, Delta, United, and FedEx requested that we revise references in the compliance section of this AD from PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 1, dated July 13, 2016, to PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016. PW and Delta also requested that we allow compliance to later revisions of this ASB. PW and Delta indicated that they expect an additional revision to this ASB prior to issuance of this final rule. Delta further asked that publication of this final rule AD be delayed until the latest version of this ASB is published.
We partially agree. We agree to update the references to PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765 to Revision 2, dated August 12, 2016, in the compliance section of this AD. We do not agree to delay publication of this final rule AD or to revise the references to service information to allow compliance to revisions that have not been published. We cannot require compliance to service information that does not exist.
PW, Delta, FedEx, and United requested that we clarify that the inspections required by paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) of this AD are for cracks from the diffuser case M-flange bolthole towards the case body. The commenters note that flange bolthole cracks away from the case body do not contribute to the unsafe condition.
We agree. We changed this AD by revising paragraphs (f)(4)(iii) and (iv) to refer to “bolthole ID crack” as defined by ASB No. PW2000 A72-765.
PW requested that we clarify in the
We disagree. The compliance section of this AD specifies that the FPI is performed at piece-part opportunity. The
Delta requested that the Definition of “piece-part opportunity” in paragraph (g) of this AD be revised to exclude diffuser cases that will not be returned to service. Delta noted that diffuser cases that will be scrapped should not be required to be inspected.
We disagree. This AD is only applicable to parts that are installed. Parts that will be scrapped do not need to be inspected. We did not change this AD.
PW and Delta requested that the reference to the HPT case M-flange be removed from the Credit for Previous Actions section of this AD. PW commented that only the diffuser case M-flange should be referenced.
PW also requested that in the Credit for Previous Actions section we refer to PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765,
We partially agree. We disagree with removing the reference to the HPT case M-flange. In order to have complied with this AD, the operator must have performed an ECI of the diffuser and HPT case M-flange as specified in this AD. As noted in our previous comment response, we agreed to update the reference to PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765 to Revision No. 2 in the compliance section of this AD. We do not need to refer to Revision No. 2 in the Credit for Previous Actions section. The purpose of the Credit for Previous Actions section is to allow credit for actions that use earlier versions of service information required by this AD. We agree to correct the date for PW SB No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, to August 30, 2013.
PW requested that we update the manufacturer's contact information in this AD to Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-565-0140 ; fax: 860-565-5442; email:
We agree. We updated the manufacturer's contact information in the
PW commented that that this AD affects 638 engines installed on U.S. airplanes. FedEx commented that the cost of the repetitive ECI proposed in this AD is $618,800.
We disagree. When AD 2014-05-32 was issued, there were only 638 affected engines in the U.S. Registry. However, a more recent inquiry for this AD located 910 engines listed in the U.S. Registry. We disagree with FedEx that the cost for a repetitive ECI is $618,800 because FedEx assumes all engines will be subject to the repetitive ECI. We estimate that the additional inspections affect only 339 of the 910 engines. We did not change this AD.
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 PW SB No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013; and PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a one-time ECI inspection of the engine diffuser case and the HPT case, and repetitive on-wing ECIs of the engine diffuser case assembly, respectively. 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 910 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with 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.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 July 18, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014-05-32, Amendment 39-17804 (79 FR 17856, March 31, 2014).
This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100 turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 72, Turbine/Turboprop Engine.
This AD was prompted by a rupture of the diffuser-to-high-pressure turbine (HPT) case flange. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the diffuser-to-HPT case flange, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Unless already done, comply with this AD within the compliance times specified.
(1) For diffuser case, part number (P/N) 1B7461, serial numbers (S/Ns) DGGUAK1306 and DGGUAK1308, and HPT case, P/N 1B2440, S/N DKLBCS1032:
(i) Within 100 flight cycles or 30 days after May 5, 2014, whichever is later, eddy current inspect the diffuser case and the HPT case M-flange. Use PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013, to do the inspection.
(ii) Reserved.
(2) For all diffuser and HPT cases, at the next piece-part opportunity and every piece-part opportunity thereafter, perform a high sensitivity fluorescent-penetrant inspection (FPI) of the entire diffuser case rear flange (M-flange) and boltholes, and the entire HPT case forward flange (M-flange) and boltholes.
(3) For diffuser cases that have not incorporated PW SB PW2000-72-364 or have incorporated either PW SB PW2000-72-700 or PW2000 Series Engine Manual, Repair-28, Task 72-41-01-300-028 (M-flange replacement), perform initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECIs) of the M-flange of the diffuser case in accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of this AD.
(4) Use, as applicable, either the Accomplishment Instructions, “For Engines Installed on the Aircraft,” paragraphs 3.(I) through 3.(J), or the Accomplishment Instructions, “For Engines Removed from the Aircraft,” paragraphs 3.(D) through 3.(E), of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016 to do the ECI as follows:
(i) Perform an initial inspection within the following period, whichever occurs later:
(A) Within 5,500 cycles since new or since M-flange replacement, or
(B) Within 2,500 cycles since last piece-part FPI inspection, or
(C) Within 1,000 cycles from the effective date of this AD.
(ii) If no crack indications are found, re-inspect within 2,500 cycles since last ECI or last piece-part FPI inspection, whichever occurs later.
(iii) If bolthole ID crack indications are found, measure the length and determine the re-inspect interval in accordance with:
(A) Paragraphs 5.(C) through 5.(D) of PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016 “For Engines Installed on the Aircraft”; or
(B) Paragraphs 4.(C) through 4.(D) of PW ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016, “For Engines Removed from the Aircraft.”
(iv) Remove from service diffuser cases with bolthole ID cracks exceeding 0.170 inches.
For the purpose of this AD, piece-part opportunity is defined as when the part is completely disassembled.
(1) You may take credit for the diffuser case and HPT case inspections required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (3) of this AD if you performed:
(i) An ECI of the diffuser case and the HPT case M-flange using the Accomplishment Instructions of PW SB No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013, or an earlier version; or
(ii) a high sensitivity FPI of the diffuser case and the HPT case at a piece-part opportunity after January 1, 2010.
(2) You may take credit for only the diffuser case inspections required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (3) of this AD if you performed an ECI of the M-flange using the Accomplishment Instructions of PW SB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 1, dated July 13, 2016, or an earlier version.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(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) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Service Bulletin No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013.
(ii) PW Alert Service Bulletin No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 2, dated August 12, 2016.
(3) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney,400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 860-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of engine exhaust system weld joints and torque checking the exhaust pipe flange mounting nuts. This AD was prompted by several reports of engine exhaust leaks. We are
This AD is effective June 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 28, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 28, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; phone: 800-258-3279; fax: 570-327-7101; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Norman Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7337; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
We received several reports of cracked engine exhaust pipes and exhaust studs pulling out from cylinders on Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of all engine exhaust system weld joints and torque checking the exhaust pipe flange mounting nuts. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine exhaust leaks, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, harmful exhaust gases entering the cabin resulting in crew incapacitation, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016. The MSB describes procedures for exhaust system inspection and flange nut torque check. 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 reviewed Lycoming Engines MSB No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014, which provides maintenance instructions on the exhaust system for certain Lycoming engines. The FAA issued AD 2015-10-06, Amendment 39-18162 (80 FR 30345, May 28, 2015), (“AD 2015-10-06”) that mandates replacement of the turbocharger mounting bracket and inspection of the exhaust pipes in accordance with Lycoming Engines MSB No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014. The requirements in this AD are in addition to the requirements of AD 2015-10-06. Complying with AD 2015-10-06 and Lycoming Engines MSB No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014, does not constitute compliance with this AD.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires initial and repetitive inspections of all engine exhaust system weld joints and torque checking the exhaust pipe flange mounting nuts.
Table 1 of Lycoming Engines MSB No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016, provides a longer time between inspections of the engine exhaust system when an operational carbon monoxide detector is installed in the airplane. This AD does not consider whether an operational carbon monoxide detector is installed in the airplane.
We consider this AD interim action. Lycoming is determining the root cause for the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once a root cause is determined, we will consider additional rulemaking.
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 engine exhaust leaks could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, harmful exhaust gases entering the cabin resulting in crew incapacitation, and damage to the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written 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 affects 758 engines, installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
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.
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 June 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A reciprocating engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7800, Engine Exhaust System.
This AD was prompted by several reports of engine exhaust leaks. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine exhaust leaks, which could lead to uncontrolled engine fire, harmful exhaust gases entering the cabin resulting in crew incapacitation, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all engines, perform an initial exhaust system inspection within 10 hours time in service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD as follows:
(i) Use the Required Action, paragraph 1. of Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016, to do the inspection.
(ii) For any part that fails the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the failed part with a part eligible for installation.
(iii) Use the Required Action, paragraph 3. of Lycoming MSB No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016, to submit a survey to Lycoming Engines within 10 days of performing the inspection.
(2) For all engines, perform an initial torque check of the exhaust system flange nuts within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, or within 100 hours TIS after the last exhaust system maintenance (ESM), whichever occurs later, as follows:
(i) Use the Required Action, paragraph 2. of Lycoming Engines MSB No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016 to torque check the flange nuts.
(ii) For any part that fails the check required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the failed part with a part eligible for installation.
(iii) Use the Required Action, paragraph 3. of Lycoming MSB No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016, to submit a survey to Lycoming Engines within 10 days of performing the check.
(3) For all engines with 1,000 hours TIS or less since the last ESM:
(i) Repeat the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD inclusive, every 25 hours TIS since the last ESM, or exhaust system inspection, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Repeat the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this AD inclusive, every 100 hours TIS after the last ESM, or torque check of the exhaust system flange nuts, whichever occurs later.
(4) For all engines with more than 1,000 hours TIS since the last ESM:
(i) Repeat the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD inclusive, every 50 hours TIS since the last ESM, or exhaust system inspection, whichever occurs later.
(ii) Repeat the actions required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this AD inclusive, every 100 hours TIS since the last ESM, or torque check of the exhaust system flange nuts, whichever occurs later.
For the purposes of this AD, ESM is any maintenance that requires the removal and replacement of any exhaust system pipe or turbocharger mounting bracket, or the re-torqueing of the exhaust flange mounting nuts.
The requirement in Required Action paragraph 3., to submit a survey to Lycoming Engines ends one year after the effective date of this AD, but, the exhaust system inspections in Required Actions paragraph 1., and torque checks of the exhaust system flange nuts, in Required Actions paragraph 2., are still required.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Norman Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7337; fax: 516-794-5531; email:
(2) Lycoming Engines MSB No. 614A, dated October 10, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from Lycoming Engines using the contact information in paragraph (m)(3) 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) Lycoming Engines Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 627C, dated November 17, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Lycoming Engines service information identified in this AD, contact Lycoming Engines, 652 Oliver Street, Williamsport, PA 17701; phone: 800-258-3279; fax: 570-327-7101; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) AE 3007C and 3007C1 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by analysis and by cracks found in the high-pressure turbine (HPT) wheel during an inspection. This AD requires replacement of the affected HPT wheels at new, lower life limits. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 18, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 18, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB-01-06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317-230-3774; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847-294-7836; fax: 847-294-7834; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RRC AE 3007C and 3007C1 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. An individual commenter supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We reviewed RRC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AE 3007C-A-72-318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016. The ASB provides updated life limits for the affected HPT wheels. 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 307 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 July 18, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) AE 3007C and 3007C1 turbofan engines with 1st stage high-pressure turbine (HPT) wheels, part number (P/N) 23062373, 23065891, or 23070664; or with 2nd stage HPT wheels, P/N 23063462, 23065892, 23069116, 23069592 (except those serial numbers (S/Ns) noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD), or 23074643, installed.
(2) This AD does not apply to RRC AE 3007C and 3007C1 turbofan engines with 2nd stage HPT wheels, P/N 23069592, with S/Ns listed in Table 6 of RRC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AE 3007C-A-72-318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine/turboprop Engine, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by analysis and by cracks found in the HPT wheel during an inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the HPT wheels, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all RRC AE 3007C or C1 engines with an installed 1st stage HPT wheel, P/N 23062373, 23065891, or 23070664, or 2nd stage HPT wheel, P/N 23063462, 23065892, 23069116, 23069592 (except those S/Ns excluded by paragraph (c)(2) of this AD) or 23074643, after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected wheels before exceeding the new life limits identified in paragraph C., Table 1 of RRC ASB AE 3007C-A-72-318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not return to service any engine with an HPT turbine wheel, with an affected P/N and an S/N, with a wheel life that exceeds the new life limits identified in paragraph C., Table 1 of RRC ASB AE 3007C-A-72-318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016.
The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
For more information about this AD, contact Kyri Zaroyiannis, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: 847-294-7836; fax: 847-294-7834; email:
(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) Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) Alert Service Bulletin AE 3007C-A-72-318, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For RRC service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Corporation, 450 South Meridian Street, Mail Code NB-01-06, Indianapolis, IN 46225; phone: 317-230-3774; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies VOR Federal airways V-14, V-265, V-464, and V-552, and removes V-90 in the eastern United States due to the planned decommissioning of the Dunkirk, NY, VORTAC navigation aid, which provides navigation guidance for portions of the above routes.
Effective date 0901, August 17, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
On March 6, 2017, the FAA published in the
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) wrote that, for those VOR NAVAIDs that are to be decommissioned, and for those airways that are correspondingly removed, the FAA should create an RNAV waypoint at the previous NAVAID location and retain all fixes and intersections along that route by amending their definition to that of an RNAV waypoint. For this specific action, there are no plans to replace the VORTAC and affected route fixes with RNAV waypoints as suggested. However, the distance measuring equipment (DME) function of the Dunkirk VORTAC will be retained in operation. In addition, to provide alternative navigation guidance in place of the airway segments that are being removed, the following routings are available:
V-14 currently extends between Chisum, NM, and Norwich, CT. This action removes the Dunkirk, NY, VORTAC from the route resulting in a gap in the airway between Erie, PA, and Buffalo, NY. The amended route extends between Chisum, NM, and Erie, PA; and between Buffalo, NY, and Norwich, CT. An alternative around the gap is V-270 from Erie, PA, to Jamestown, NY, then V-115 to Buffalo, NY, then rejoin V-14.
V-90 currently extends between Salem, MI, and Dunkirk, NY. This action cancels the entire route. As an alternative, V-418 currently overlies the
V-464 currently extends between Salem, MI, and Geneseo, NY. This action terminates the route at Aylmer, ON. After Aylmer, aircraft could transition to V-2 to Buffalo, NY, then V-14/V-84 to Geneseo, NY.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This final rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-14, V-265, V-464, and V-552, and removing V-90 due to the planned decommissioning of the Dunkirk, NY, VORTAC. The route changes are described below.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways in the eastern United States due to the planned decommissioning of the Dunkirk, NY VORTAC navigation aid qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Chisum, NM; Lubbock, TX; Childress, TX; Hobart, OK; Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 052° and Tulsa, OK 246° radials; Tulsa; Neosho, MO; Springfield, MO; Vichy, MO; INT Vichy 067° and St. Louis, MO, 225° radials; St. Louis; Vandalia, IL; Terre Haute, IN; Brickyard, IN; Muncie, IN; Flag City, OH; INT Flag City 079° and Dryer, OH, 240° radials; Dryer; Jefferson, OH; to Erie, PA. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; Georgetown, NY; INT Georgetown 093° and Albany, NY, 270° radials; Albany; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; Gardner; to Norwich, CT.
From INT Washington, DC, 043° and Westminster, MD, 179° radials; via Westminster;
Harrisburg, PA; Philipsburg, PA; Keating, NY; Bradford, PA; to Jamestown, NY.
From Salem, MI; via INT Salem 082° and Aylmer, ON, Canada, 261° radials; to Aylmer, ON. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Dryer, OH; INT Dryer 049° and Erie, PA, 258° radials; to Erie.
Delaware River Basin Commission.
Final rule.
Notice is provided of the Commission's regulatory program fees and schedule of water charges for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017. The Commission is also correcting two footnotes in the regulations which cite incorrectly to the applicable CPI data series.
This final rule is effective July 1, 2017.
Elba L. Deck, CPA, Director of Administration and Finance, 609-883-9500, ext. 201.
The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC” or “Commission”) is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. Its members are the governors of the four basin states—Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania—and on behalf of the federal government, the North Atlantic Division Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In accordance with 18 CFR 401.43(c), on July 1 of every year beginning July 1, 2017, the Commission's regulatory program fees as set forth in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of that section are subject to an annual adjustment, commensurate with any increase in the annual April 12-month Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Philadelphia published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics during that year. Pursuant to 18 CFR 420.43(c), the same indexed adjustment applies to the Commission's schedule of water charges for consumptive and non-consumptive withdrawals of surface water within the basin. The referenced April 12-month CPI for 2017 showed an increase of 1.27%. Commensurate adjustments are thus required.
This notice is made in accordance with 18 CFR 401.42(c) and 18 CFR 420.42(c), which provide that a revised fee schedule will be published in the
The Commission is also correcting two footnotes in the regulations which cite incorrectly to the applicable CPI data series as CWURA102SA0. The correct data series number is CUUA102SA0. The regulations are thus incorrect and in need of amendment, as set forth below.
Administrative practice and procedure, Project review, Water pollution control, Water resources.
Water supply.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Delaware River Basin Commission amends parts 401 and 420 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Delaware River Basin Compact (75 Stat. 688), unless otherwise noted.
Delaware River Basin Compact, 75 Stat. 688.
(a) $81.01 per million gallons for consumptive use, subject to paragraph (c) of this section; and
(b) $0.81 per million gallons for non-consumptive use, subject to paragraph (c) of this section.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
In accordance with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, this rule amends the regulation of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that governs the examination and copying of PBGC records.
Samantha M. Lowen (
This rule is needed to incorporate changes to the Freedom of Information Act made by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Authority for this rule is provided by section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
This rule provides for an electronic reading room for records, expands the categories of records in the reading room, updates the standard for disclosure, requires additional notice to requesters about FOIA resources, extends the appeal deadline, and places restrictions on fees.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is amending its regulation on Examination and Copying of PBGC Records (29 CFR part 4901) (FOIA regulation) to incorporate statutory changes to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 551
PBGC is amending §§ 4901.3, 4901.4, and 4901.5 of its FOIA regulation by replacing the references to PBGC's “public reference room” with references to its “electronic reading room.”
Before the 2016 Act, the FOIA required agencies to affirmatively make certain categories of records “available for public inspection and copying” without prompting by formal request. Like most agencies, PBGC complied with this requirement by maintaining a physical “reference room” to house these records (and indices thereto), which members of the public could inspect and copy in person. The e-FOIA Amendments of 1996 (1996 Act) provided that agencies could supplement or entirely replace their physical reading rooms with electronic reading rooms, where members of the public could access the affirmatively
Consistent with these revisions to the FOIA, PBGC is amending its FOIA regulation by removing the now outdated references to PBGC's public reference room and adding a description (including the location) of PBGC's electronic reading room.
PBGC is amending § 4901.4 of its FOIA regulation to include two additional types of records in its electronic reading room.
Both the 2007 Act and the 2016 Act added to the list of records that agencies must disclose without formal request. As amended, the FOIA requires each agency to affirmatively release certain records that the agency determines are likely to be the subject of future requests, as well as certain others that have been the subject of three or more requests. The FOIA also requires agencies to redact such records to the extent necessary to protect personal privacy interests before adding them to the electronic reading room.
Consistent with this change, PBGC is amending the list of records available in its electronic reading room at § 4901.4.
PBGC is amending § 4901.5 of its FOIA regulation to incorporate the 2016 Act's “foreseeable harm” standard for responsive disclosures.
The 2016 Act provides that an agency should only withhold information under the FOIA “if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption [under the FOIA]” or if disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law. Accordingly, PBGC is amending § 4901.5, which sets forth PBGC's general policy of openness under the FOIA, by adding this foreseeable harm exception to disclosure.
PBGC is amending § 4901.14 of its FOIA regulation to incorporate the additional notice requirements to requesters of certain resources available to them. The 2016 Act requires an agency, when issuing a determination to a requester, to offer the services of the agency's FOIA Public Liaison and, if the determination is adverse, to notify the requester of the services provided by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
PBGC is amending § 4901.15 of its FOIA regulation by increasing the appeal deadline from 30 to 90 days, in conformity with the 90-day minimum time period established by the 2016 Act.
PBGC is amending § 4901.31 of its FOIA regulation to include new restrictions under the 2016 Act on PBGC's ability to charge fees in certain situations. Under the amended regulation, if PBGC fails to respond to a request within the time specified under paragraph (a)(6) of the FOIA, PBGC generally may not charge the applicable search or duplication fees unless specific conditions—established by the 2016 Act—have been met.
PBGC has determined that this rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to this rule, and the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Although this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, PBGC has examined the economic implications of this final rule. PBGC has concluded that because these proposed amendments incorporate statutory changes that facilitate the public's access to PBGC records under the FOIA at no additional cost, these regulatory amendments result in a net benefit to the public.
The amendments of PBGC's FOIA regulation contained herein concern matters of agency procedure and practice. They provide additional protection to the public and are being adopted in accordance with the provisions of the 2016 Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601.
Freedom of information.
In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC is amending 29 CFR part 4901 as follows.
5 U.S.C. 552, 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235.
The PBGC will maintain an electronic reading room on its Web site,
The revisions and additions read as follows:
The PBGC shall make available for public inspection in an electronic format without formal request—
(d) * * *
(4)
(5)
The addition reads as follows:
(e)
(1) PBGC has determined that unusual circumstances apply and that more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, provided that:
(i) PBGC has provided timely written notice of this determination to the requester; and
(ii) PBGC has discussed with the requester—or made three or more good-faith attempts to do so—via written mail, electronic mail, or telephone how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request.
(2) A court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)) and has issued an order excusing PBGC's failure to comply with the time limit.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending its special local regulations and safety zones established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays that take place within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility. This interim final rule revises the listing of events that informs the public of regularly scheduled marine parades, regattas, other organized water events, and fireworks displays that require additional safety measures provided by regulations. This interim final rule updates the list of recurring marine events with revisions to include additional events, change of date(s), and removal of events that no longer take place in the Fifth Coast Guard District. When these regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas. This rulemaking project promotes efficiency by eliminating the need to produce a separate rule for each individual recurring event and serves to provide notice of the known recurring events requiring a special local regulation or safety zone throughout the year. This rule also removes regulations that are no longer effective or required.
This rule is effective without actual notice from June 13, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, May 31, 2017, until June 13, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Dennis Sens, Fifth Coast Guard District Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6204,
The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking on April 6, 2017 (82 FR 16746). The public comment period for this NPRM closed on Monday, May 8, 2017; no comments were received.
Documents mentioned in this Interim Final Rule as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
The Tables in the CFR that list annual and recurring special local regulations
Publishing these regulatory updates in a single rulemaking promotes administrative efficiency and reduces costs involved in producing a separate rule for each individual recurring event. This rulemaking action also provides the public with notice through publication in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), an agency may make a rule effective less than 30 days from publication of a final notice in the
This interim rule is effective upon signature. This rule is prepared to provide the most up to date list of recurring marine events, special local regulations and safety zones. These recurring events are noticed to the public through local community media outlets and by event planners in conjunction with the communities in which they take place.
The Coast Guard issues this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 U.S.C. 1233; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Coast Guard has determined that potential hazards associated with marine events and fireworks displays that take place on and over navigable waters will be a safety concern for persons or vessels in the vicinity of these events. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons and vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled marine event.
The current lists of annual and recurring special local regulations and safety zones for marine events and fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR) are published under 33 CFR 100.501 and 165.506, respectively. This interim rule will add to, remove from, and amend 33 CFR 100.501 and 33 CFR 165.506 to create a comprehensive list of recurring marine events and fireworks displays requiring special local regulations and safety zones.
This rule adds 3 new special local regulations for marine events, removes 1 regulation and revises 6 previously established regulations for marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain events, the other provisions in 33 CFR 100.501 remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard revises regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 3 new special local regulations. The special local regulations are listed in Table 1, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.
The Coast Guard amends the regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by disestablishing the special local regulation previously listed in section (b.) of Table to 100.501; marine event—Maryland Swim for Life, Chester River, MD. The basis for removal of this marine event from regulatory enforcement includes limited vessel traffic in the area of the event, close proximity to shore, and shallow water depths.
This rule revises 6 preexisting special local regulations that involve change to marine event date(s) and/or coordinates. These events are listed in Table 2, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.
Based on the nature of marine events, the large numbers of participants and spectators, and the event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels and spectator vessels or mariners traversing through the regulated area. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.
This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commanders may be augmented by local, State, or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.
This rule revises 12 previously established safety zones and removes 6 safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. Other than changes to the dates of certain safety zones, the other provisions in 33 CFR 165.506 remain unchanged.
The Coast Guard proposed to add eight new safety zones in the previously published Notice of proposed rulemaking on April 6, 2017 (82 FR 16746). The NPRM also proposed to revise the coordinates described by latitude and longitude for the center point of 3 previously established safety zones. Both the new and revised safety zones proposed for 33 CFR 165.506 have been temporarily postponed and are not included in this interim final rule. This action was necessary to ensure compliance with environmental review and policy requirements established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Upon completion of NEPA environmental analysis and review, the previously proposed safety zones may be included in a future revision to 33 CFR 165.506.
The rule revises 12 preexisting safety zones that involve changes to event date(s). These revised safety zones are shown in Table 3, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.
The Coast Guard amends regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by disestablishing the following 6 safety zones listed in Table 4.
Each year, organizations in the Fifth Coast Guard District sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene may allow boaters within the safety zone if conditions permit.
The enforcement period for these safety zones is from 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the COTP or designated Coast Guard patrol commander on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. This rule provides for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
The Coast Guard amends regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 and 33 CFR 165.506 by removing the following 5 temporary
The Coast Guard is removing 33 CFR 165.540 that was previously established to facilitate a large multi-year dredging project in the coastal Cape Fear River area. This project was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its contractors and accordingly a safety zone is no longer required for this purpose.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally, vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine information and facsimile broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas and safety zones will only be enforced one to three times per year.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through a special local regulated area or safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
These special local regulated areas and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and spectators. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally, permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas during the enforcement may be given, when deemed safe to do so by the Coast Guard patrol commander on scene. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. Some marine events by their nature may introduce potential for adverse impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users or waterfront infrastructure within or close proximity to the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, as the appropriate environmental analysis is contained in the permitting for the events. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration are not required for this section of the rule.
This rule involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for fireworks events. These safety zones are enforced for the duration of fireworks display events. The fireworks are generally launched from either a floating barge platform or immediately adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The category of activities includes fireworks launched from barges or at the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer. Fireworks displays may introduce potential hazards such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
This section applies to the marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. These regulations will be effective annually, for the duration of each event listed in the Table to § 100.501. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulation with respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will be published in Local Notices to Mariners and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii) Vessel operators may request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. When authorized to transit through the regulated area, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course or marine event area.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(d)
(1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: (215) 271-4940.
(2) Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland: (410) 576-2525.
(3) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—Captain of the Port Zone, Norfolk, Virginia: (757) 483-8567.
(4) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone North Carolina: (877) 229-0770 or (910) 362-4015.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(2) Marine event: (b.) 23, Baltimore Air Show. Patapsco River spectator area; except for a vessel in an emergency situation, a vessel may not anchor or hold station within the spectator area described in Table to 100.501 (b.) 23 without the permission of the Captain of the Port or designated PATCOM. The Captain of the Port has designated this spectator area for commercial small passenger vessel use. This area is closed except for commercial small passenger vessels holding a valid Certificate of Inspection regulated under 46 CFR subchapters K and T (46 CFR 114.110 and 175.110). Vessels that meet the requirements of this section may request access to the Patapsco River spectator area by contacting the Sail Baltimore at (410) 522-7300 or emailing
(i) Anchorage No. 1, general anchorage;
(ii) Anchorage No. 2, general anchorage;
(iii) Anchorage No. 3 Upper, general anchorage; and
(iv) Anchorage No. 3 Lower, general anchorage.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2) This section applies to the fireworks safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. These regulations will be enforced annually, for the duration of each fireworks event listed in the Table to § 165.506. In the case of inclement weather, the event may be conducted on the day following the date listed in the Table to § 165.506. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the enforcement period of the regulation with respect to each safety zone, the geographical area, and other details concerning the nature of the fireworks event will be published in Local Notices to Mariners and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. Those personnel are comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Other Federal, State, and local agencies may assist these personnel in the enforcement of the safety zone. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(b)
(2) Coast Guard Captains of the Port in the Fifth Coast Guard District will notify the public of the enforcement of these safety zones by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public. Publication in the Local Notice to Mariners, Marine information broadcasts, and facsimile broadcasts may be made for these events, beginning 24 to 48 hours before the event is scheduled to begin, to notify the public.
(c)
(1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: (215) 271-4940.
(2) Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland: (410) 576-2525.
(3) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—Captain of the Port Zone, Norfolk, Virginia: (757) 483-8567.
(4) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone, Wilmington, North Carolina: (877) 229-0770 or (910) 362-4015.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Sea World Fireworks on the waters of Mission Bay, CA on specific evenings from Memorial Day to Labor Day in 2017. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the events, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the Southern California annual fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the events. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 7, will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on June 30 through July 5, and September 1 through September 4, 2017.
If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone for the Sea World Fireworks on the waters of Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 7 of that section, from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on specific evenings from Memorial Day to Labor Day in 2017. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks events. Our regulation for Southern California annual fireworks events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the events. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary 500 yard safety zone around the sailing canoe HOKULEA for her return to Oahu from a three year worldwide voyage. HOKULEA is a culturally significant double-hulled sailing canoe modeled after the vessels that brought the first Polynesians to Hawaii. Thousands of people on various types of water craft, including surfboards, canoes, sailing vessels and motor vessels as well as swimmers, have come out to greet HOKULEA when she has returned to port in the past. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential safety hazards associated with the anticipated large number of spectator craft expected to greet the sailing canoe HOKULEA upon her arrival. A moving 500 yard safety zone around the HOKULEA will be in place during her transit, starting when she passes abeam of Makapu'u light house and continuing through Mamala Bay to her mooring in the Ala Wai Harbor. Upon mooring, the moving safety zone will cease but a stationary 500 yard safety zone will be maintained around the HOKULEA until the conclusion of the HOKULEA arrival festivities. Entry of vessels or persons into the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu or his designated representative. The Coast Guard will establish a command post at the entrance to the Ala Wai Harbor. This command post will maintain a list of all vessels with authorized moorings in the Ala Wai Harbor that will be allowed to transit the safety zone to depart from or return to these moorings. Vessels not on this list may request to transit the safety zone by contacting the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 5:30 a.m. (HST) on June 17, 2017 through 10 p.m. (HST) on June 17, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Nicolas Jarboe, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 541-4359 or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to the authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the request for the moving safety zone was received by the Coast Guard on May 10, 2017. Immediate action is needed to prevent possible safety hazards associated with the large amount of vessel traffic expected to greet the sailing canoe HOKULEA in transit and within the small confines of Ala Wai Harbor. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by June 17, 2017.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Honolulu has determined that potential hazards exists form the large number of spectator craft expected to greet the sailing canoe HOKULEA on June 17, 2017. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the 500 yard safety zone while HOKULEA is in transit and moored.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 5:30 a.m. (HST) on June 17, 2017 through 10 p.m. (HST) on June 17, 2017. This safety zone is located within the COTP zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and will encompass all waters 500 yards in all directions from the sailing canoe HOKULEA during her transit from Makapu'u light house through Mamala Bay to and including her mooring in Ala Wai Harbor. This safety zone will extend from the surface of the water to the ocean floor and is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone during the transit and mooring of the sailing canoe HOKULEA. No vessel will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP or his designated representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to further notify waterway users of these waterway restrictions. If the safety zone is terminated prior to 10 p.m. on June 17, 2017, the Coast Guard will also provide a broadcast notice to mariners.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this moving safety zone, which will only impact small designated areas of Mamala Bay on the Island of Oahu, HI. Once the HOKULEA is moored, authorized vessels will be allowed to transit the Ala Wai Harbor. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone. The rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 1 day that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of the sailing canoe HOKULEA. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in this part.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.
(3) Persons or vessels desiring to transit the moving safety zone identified in paragraph (a) of this section may contact the COTP of Honolulu through his designated representatives at the Command Center via telephone: (808) 842-2600 and (808) 842-2601; fax: (808) 842-2642; or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to request permission to enter or transit the moving safety zone. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP Honolulu or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while in the moving safety zone.
(4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the moving safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Avi Resort and Casino Independence Day Fireworks on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for annual firework events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for Item 3 in Table 1 to § 165.1124.
If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 for a safety zone on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada for the Avi Resort and Casino Independence Day Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1124, Table 1, Item 3 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1124, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1124 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Laughlin/Bullhead City Rockets Over the River Fireworks on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona on Saturday, July 1, 2017 and Tuesday, July 4, 2017. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 1 and July 4, 2017, for Item 2 in Table 1 to § 165.1124.
If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 for a safety zone on the Colorado River in Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona for the Laughlin/Bullhead City Rockets Over the River Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1124, Table 1, Item 2 of that section from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 1 and July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1124, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1124 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and participants from hazards associated with fireworks displays and swim events. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).
The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.
If you have questions on this document, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in the Table below. This regulation was published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones for the Town of Chesapeake Beach fireworks display taking place over the Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Beach, MD, on July 2, 2017 and the Havre de Grace 4th of July Celebration fireworks display taking place over the Susquehanna River, Havre de Grace, MD, on July 2, 2017. During the enforcement periods, vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during these events.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506, listed as event (b.) 10, Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Beach, MD; Safety Zone, in the table to 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2017; and in the case of inclement weather enforcement
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (WWM Division); telephone 410-576-2674, email
The safety zone for the Town of Chesapeake Beach fireworks display will include all waters within 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°41′36″ N., longitude 076°31′30″ W., and within a 200 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°41′28″ N., longitude 076°31′29″ W. The safety zone for the Havre de Grace 4th of July Celebration fireworks display will include all waters within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 39°32′19″ N., longitude 076°04′58.3″ W.
This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these events. As specified in § 165.506 (d), during the enforcement period, vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP, Coast Guard Patrol Commander or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. Other Federal, State and local agencies may assist these personnel in the enforcement of the safety zone. If the COTP or his designated on-scene patrol personnel determine the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges are amending regulations governing claims to royalty fees deposited with the Copyright Office under compulsory licenses to reflect implementation of a new electronic filing system and to consolidate cable and satellite rules.
Effective June 13, 2017.
Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at
On March 17, 2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a notice in the
The Judges address the comments on a section-by-section basis. The Judges will adopt without change those sections upon which no interested party commented.
Each of the comments the Judges received addressed this section. All of the commenters opposed proposed language that would have required parties filing joint claims to identify a qualifying secondary transmission of a work for each copyright owner listed in a joint claim.
The Allocation Phase Parties described the burden on claimants and filers of requiring identification of a qualifying transmission for a work of each copyright owner listed in a joint claim, both in terms of labor and monetary expense. “For example, the
Identifying only a single secondary transmission on a joint claim has very little utility for the Judges. The Judges proposed requiring identification of secondary transmissions for each joint claimant at the claims-filing stage in order to improve the efficiency of distribution proceedings by screening out invalid claims at the earliest possible point in the claims distribution process. The Judges must weigh the potential improvement of administrative efficiency against the cost of compliance on some claimants, and the potential for deterring the filing of meritorious claims. On balance, the Judges find that the burden outweighs the benefit and will not include the proposed requirement in the final rule. Moreover, given the extremely limited value of identifying a single secondary transmission on a joint claim, the Judges will eliminate that existing requirement as well.
Similar considerations apply to § 360.4(b)(2)(ii). The language the Judges proposed was intended to elicit information from joint claimants regarding their authorization to file claims on behalf of each of the copyright owners listed in the claim. Again, the Judges were seeking to improve the efficiency of distribution proceedings by screening out invalid claims at the earliest possible point in the distribution process. The Judges recognize that the proposal would impose additional cost on some claimants, potentially deterring them from filing meritorious claims. Consequently, the Judges will omit the proposed the language concerning authorization from the final rule. The Judges will rely instead on the filer's declaration and certification regarding the filer's authority and the veracity of the claim.
The Program Suppliers have proposed that the Judges extend to collective management organizations (CMOs) the existing language that exempts performing rights organizations from the requirement to identify each of the copyright owners covered by a joint claim. The Program Suppliers argued that “CMOs are distinct from other non-PRO claimants in that they are government-authorized, non-profit entities typically regulated by their native national legislation, and are specifically created to administer audiovisual rights and/or collect royalties on behalf of thousands of rights owners based in their respective countries or regions . . . . Within the context of retransmission royalties, CMOs therefore are similarly situated as PROs.” Program Suppliers Comments at 5-6.
This is a new proposal that has not been reviewed or commented upon by any interested parties (other than the Program Suppliers). The administrative record is limited to a brief discussion in the Program Suppliers Comments. The Judges are not prepared to extend the existing exemption to a potentially broad group of entities on this basis. The final rule will not include the Program Suppliers' proposal.
The PROs urged the Judges to revise this provision to permit filers of joint claims to submit a list of joint claimants in electronic form. PROs Comments at 7. The PROs “anticipate[d]”—correctly—that eCRB will accommodate lists of claimants in electronic format, and seek express acknowledgement in the regulation. In addition, the PROs sought language that would permit parties filing joint claims by mail or hand delivery to provide claimant lists on a CD or other electronic format.
Claims filed through eCRB are entirely electronic. eCRB will permit a person filing a joint claim to list up to ten claimants in the webform. For joint claims with more than ten claimants, the filer will be permitted to attach a separate electronic file that lists the claimants. Proposed § 360.4(b)(2)(i) already reflects this eCRB innovation. The Judges will modify proposed § 360.22 to reflect this as well.
In addition, the Judges find the PROs' proposal to permit parties filing joint claims by mail or hand delivery to provide claimant lists on a CD or other electronic format to be reasonable and likely to improve administrative efficiency. The Judges will therefore include this proposal in both the final rule for cable and satellite claims (§ 360.4) and the final rule for DART claims (§ 360.22).
The Allocation Phase Parties and the Program Suppliers urged the Judges to permit amendment of claims after the claims-filing deadline without requiring the claimant to file a motion with the Judges.
The Allocation Phase Parties noted that “[t]he only elements of a claim subject to being amended are those relating to the ‘general statement of the nature of the works’ being claimed and to the example of a secondary transmission of one of the copyright owner's works establishing the basis of the claim.” Comments of the Allocation Phase Parties at 5 (citations and footnote omitted).
The Allocation Phase Parties' assertion is mistaken: There are other elements of a claim that may be amended. For example, while the proposed regulation would prohibit
Nevertheless, the Allocation Phase Parties are correct in pointing out that the regulations should allow certain amendments as of right after the claims filing deadline. In addition, the Program suppliers are correct in pointing out practical difficulties in filing a motion to amend a claim prior to the initiation of a distribution proceeding.
The final regulation will permit amendment to filed claims prior to the claims filing deadline as of right. It will also permit amendment to filed claims after the claims filing deadline as of right, provided that the amendment is limited to correcting the general description of the nature of the work, fixing typographical or other nonsubstantive errors in other portions of the claim, or striking a claimant that was erroneously included in a joint claim. The Judges will address the procedure for making any other amendments to filed claims in a separate rulemaking at a later date and after further study.
Having considered all comments from interested parties, the Judges adopt as final rules the changes and additions to 37 CFR parts 350 and 360 detailed in this Final Rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Copyright, Electronic filing.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable royalties, Claims, Copyright, Electronic filing, Satellite royalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend parts 350 and 360 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
17 U.S.C. 803.
(c) * * *
(3)
17 U.S.C. 801, 803, 805.
Subpart A also issued under 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4) and 119(b)(4).
Subpart B also issued under 17 U.S.C. 1007(a)(1).
Subpart C also issued under 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4), 119(b)(4) and 1007(a)(1).
This subpart prescribes procedures under 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A) and 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(4) whereby parties claiming entitlement to cable compulsory license royalty fees or satellite compulsory license royalty fees must file claims with the Copyright Royalty Board.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions will apply:
(a) During the month of July each year, any party claiming to be entitled to cable compulsory license royalty fees or satellite compulsory license royalty fees for secondary transmissions during the preceding calendar year must file a claim or claims with the Copyright Royalty Board. No party will receive royalty fees for secondary transmissions during the specified period unless the party has filed a timely claim to the fees. Claimants may file claims jointly or as a single claim. Claimants must file separate claims for cable compulsory license royalty fees and satellite compulsory license royalty fees. The Copyright Royalty Board will reject any claim that purports to be for both cable and satellite royalty fees.
(b) Claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board will be considered timely filed only if they are filed online through eCRB or by mail or hand delivery in accordance with § 301.2 during the month of July, as determined in accordance with § 350.7.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in any year in which July 31 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or other nonbusiness day within the District of Columbia or the Federal Government, the due date for claims to cable or satellite compulsory license royalty fees will be the first business day in August.
(d) In the event the Copyright Royalty Board does not receive a claim that was properly addressed and mailed, the filer may prove proper filing of the claim if it was sent by certified mail return receipt requested, and the filer produces a receipt bearing a July date stamp of the United States Postal Service. The Copyright Royalty Board will accept no other offer of proof in lieu of the return receipt.
(e) For claims filed electronically through eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board will accept the confirmation email generated by eCRB as proof of filing. The Copyright Royalty Board will accept no other offer of proof regarding claims filed electronically through eCRB.
(a)
(2) Copies of claim forms are available:
(i) On the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at
(ii) On the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at
(iii) Upon request to the Copyright Royalty Board by mail at the address set forth in § 301.2(a), by email at the address set forth in § 301.2(d), or by telephone at (202) 707-7658.
(b)
(i) The full legal name, address, and email address of the copyright owner entitled to claim the royalty fees.
(ii) A statement of the nature of the copyright owner's work(s) that has (have) been secondarily transmitted by a cable system or satellite carrier establishing a basis for the claim.
(iii) The name, telephone number, full mailing address, and email address of the person or entity filing the single claim. The information contained in a filer's eCRB profile shall fulfill this requirement for claims submitted through eCRB.
(iv) The name, telephone number, and email address of the person whom the Copyright Royalty Board can contact regarding the claim.
(v) An original signature of the copyright owner or of a duly authorized representative of the copyright owner, except for claims filed online through eCRB.
(vi) A declaration of authority to file the claim and a certification of the veracity of the information contained in the claim and the good faith of the person signing in providing the information. Penalties for fraud and false statements are provided under 18 U.S.C. 1001
(2)
(i) With the exception of joint claims filed by a performing rights society on behalf of its members, a list including the full legal name, address, and email address of each copyright owner whose claim(s) are included in the joint claim. Claims filed online through eCRB must include an Excel spreadsheet containing the information if the number of joint claimants is in excess of ten. For claims filed by mail or hand delivery, the list containing the name of each claimant to the joint claim may be provided in a single Excel spreadsheet on CD, DVD, or other electronic storage medium.
(ii) A general statement of the nature of the copyright owners' works that have been secondarily transmitted by a cable system or satellite carrier establishing a basis for the joint claim.
(iii) The name, telephone number, full mailing address, and email address of the person or entity filing the joint claim. The information contained in a filer's eCRB profile shall fulfill this requirement for claims submitted through eCRB.
(iv) The name, telephone number, and email address of a person whom the Copyright Royalty Board can contact regarding the claim.
(v) Original signatures of the copyright owners identified on the joint claim or of a duly authorized representative or representatives of the copyright owners, except for claims filed online through eCRB.
(vi) A declaration of authority to file the claim and a certification of the veracity of the information contained in the claim and the good faith of the person signing in providing the information. Penalties for fraud and false statements are provided under 18 U.S.C. 1001
(c)
Following the instructions outlined in 37 CFR 301.2, a claimant must file an original and one copy of the claim to cable or satellite compulsory license royalty fees at the address(es) listed for each claim submitted to the Copyright Royalty Board by hand delivery or by U.S. mail.
This subpart prescribes procedures whereby an interested copyright party, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(7), claiming to be entitled to royalty payments made for the importation and distribution in the United States, or the manufacture and distribution in the United States, of digital audio recording devices and media (DART) pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1006, shall file claims with the Copyright Royalty Board.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates specifically authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings; or
(2) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates, as specified in a court order issued by a court with authority to interpret the terms of the contract, authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings.
(a)
(2) Copies of DART claim forms are available:
(i) On the Copyright Royalty Board's Web site at
(ii) On the Copyright Royalty Board's Web site at
(iii) Upon request to the Copyright Royalty Board, by mail at the address set forth in § 301.2(a), by email at the address set forth in § 301.2(d), or by telephone at (202) 707-7658.
(b)
(1) The full legal name and address of the person or entity claiming royalty payments.
(2) The name, telephone number, full mailing address, and email address of the person or entity filing the claim. The information contained in a filer's eCRB profile will fulfill this requirement for claims submitted through eCRB.
(3) The name, telephone number, and email address of a person whom the Copyright Royalty Board can contact regarding the claim.
(4) A statement as to how the claimant fits within the definition of
(5) A statement as to whether the claim is being made against the Sound Recordings Fund or the Musical Works Fund, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b), and as to which Subfund the claim is made. The Subfunds for the Sound Recordings Fund are the Copyright Owners Subfund and the Featured Recording Artists Subfund, The Subfunds for the Musical Works Fund are the Music Publishers Subfund and the Writers Subfund, as described in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1) through (2).
(6) Identification, establishing a basis for the claim, of at least one musical work or sound recording embodied in a digital musical recording or an analog musical recording lawfully made under title 17 of the United States Code that has been distributed (as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(6)), and that, during the period to which the royalty payments claimed pertain, has been:
(i) Distributed (as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(6)) in the form of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings; or
(ii) Disseminated to the public in transmissions.
(7) A declaration of the authority to file the claim and of the veracity of the information contained in the claim and the good faith of the person signing in providing the information. Penalties for fraud and false statements are provided under 18 U.S.C. 1001
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Following the instructions outlined in 37 CFR 301.2, a claimant must file an original and one copy of the claim to DART royalty fees at the address(es) listed for each claim submitted to the Copyright Royalty Board by hand delivery or by U.S. mail.
(a) The independent administrator jointly appointed by the interested copyright parties, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(7)(A), and the American Federation of Musicians (or any successor entity) for the purpose of managing and ultimately distributing royalty payments to nonfeatured musicians as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1), must file a notice informing the Copyright Royalty Board of his/her appointment.
(b) The independent administrator jointly appointed by the interested copyright parties, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(7)(A) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (or any successor entity) for the purpose of managing and ultimately distributing royalty payments to nonfeatured vocalists as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1), must file a notice informing the Copyright Royalty Board of his/her appointment.
(c) A notice filed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must include the full name, telephone number, mailing address, and email address of the place of business of the independent administrator.
(d) The independent administrator must file the notices identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section through eCRB no later than March 31 of each year, commencing with March 31, 2018.
Any claimant may amend a filed claim as of right by filing a Notice of Amendment during the statutory period for filing annual claims. After the expiration of the time for filing claims, a claimant may amend a filed claim as of right to correct the general description of the nature of the claimant's work(s), to fix typographical or other nonsubstantive errors in other portions of the claim, or to strike a claimant or interested copyright party
Any claimant may withdraw its claim for any royalty year as of right by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Claim(s). If a single claimant filed a Petition to Participate in a proceeding, withdrawal of the claim shall serve to dismiss the Petition to Participate. If the claimant withdrawing a claim was included on the Petition to Participate of another entity, withdrawal of the claim shall not affect the Petition to Participate as to other claims listed thereon.
Once a claimant has withdrawn a claim, that claim may be reinstated only by order of the Copyright Royalty Judges, on motion showing good cause and lack of prejudice to other claimants to the applicable year's royalty funds.
Approved by:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts when used as an inert ingredient (surfactants, related adjuvants of surfactants) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and to animals. Huntsman Petrochemical LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts when applied or used under these conditions.
This regulation is effective June 13, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 14, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0467, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The toxicity of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts was considered in an October 2005 health assessment performed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Initial Assessment Profile (SIAP) for the Hydrotropes Category.
The hydrotropes category covers “toluene sulfonic acid, sodium salt,” “xylene sulfonic acid, sodium salt” and “cumene sulfonic acid, sodium salt.” This category also includes isomeric forms (ortho, meta, and/or para) of the respective sulfonic acid salts (sodium, ammonium, calcium and potassium). OECD notes that the hydrotropes category may be initially considered as three sub-groups: The methyl, dimethyl and methylethyl benzene sulfonates, (or the toluene, xylene and cumene sulfonates). Although the counter ion will also determine the physical and chemical behavior of the compounds, the chemical reactivity and classification for this purpose is not expected to be affected by the difference in counter ion. The structures as well as the physical/chemical and toxicological properties of these chemical entities are essentially the same. The three subgroups are expected to be generally comparable and predictable in their chemical behavior (as such or in solution) and that members from one subgroup may be useful for interpolations across to other subgroups and to the hydrotropes category in general. Therefore, on this basis, data on other members of the hydrotrope category can be used in a `read across' fashion to determine the toxicity of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts
Cumene sulfonic acid and its salts and the structurally related hydrotropes are categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation. They are not dermal irritants or dermal sensitizers and are considered slight eye irritants.
Several subchronic studies via the oral route for hydrotropes are available in the database. In two 14-day toxicity studies in mice and rats with sodium xylene sulfonate, no significant treatment related toxicity was observed at doses up to 4% in the diet (approximately 4,000 mg/kg/day) in mice. In rats, there were some mortalities which were not observed in a dose-related manner as well as losses of body weight that were attributable to palatability of the test article. These effects were not considered as adverse findings. In a repeat study in rats,
Hydrotropes were tested for their mutagenic potential in various
No reproductive toxicity studies are available for the hydrotropes, although available oral and dermal toxicity studies with various hydrotropes included examination of reproductive organs of both sexes. The OECD SIDS assessment included reviews of a 91-day oral rat feeding study with sodium cumene sulfonate, a 90-day feeding study with sodium xylene sulfonate (mice and rats) and the 2-year dermal studies with sodium xylene sulfonate (in mice and rats) which included examination of the reproductive organs of both sexes. There was no evidence from these studies to suggest that hydrotropes would have an adverse effect on reproductive organs by either the oral or dermal route. No developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits are available in the cumene sulfonic acid and its salts. However, a developmental study in rats is available for a surrogate hydrotrope, calcium xylene sulfonate. In this study the NOAEL for maternal and fetal toxicity was the highest dose tested, 3,000 mg/kg/day (936 mg/kg/day, corrected for purity of test material). Based on this information, there is no evidence to consider cumene sulfonic acid and its salts as being developmental toxicants.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cumene sulfonic acid and its salts and the other members of the hydrotrupes category as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
No endpoint of concern following a single dose was identified in the available database. The Agency identified a NOAEL of 763 mg/kg/day for systemic toxicity, which was selected from an oral subchronic study. Effects observed in this study were a decrease in spleen weight in females along with some clinical chemistry and hematology changes at the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg/day. No adverse effects were reported in males. This study was used for chronic dietary exposure assessment. An uncertainty factor of 100X is applied (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability). For several reasons, no additional uncertainty factor is necessary for the use of subchronic study data for chronic exposure assessment. First there was a wide dose spread between the toxic effects seen at the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL of 763 mg/kg/day. Second, the changes observed in clinical chemistry and hematological parameters were small in magnitude and no effects on organs were observed in the study. Therefore, the changes observed were not considered toxicologically significant. Finally, the NOAEL in a separate 90-day study in rats was 2,467 mg/kg/day indicating the lower NOAEL value in the selected study is an artifact of dose selection. Therefore, EPA concluded that there is no need to retain an additional uncertainty factor for use of a short-term study for long-term exposure assessment.
Based on the physicochemical data and lack of systemic toxicity in the available dermal toxicity studies, EPA concluded that there is no need to conduct quantitative dermal risk exposure assessment.
No data are available on the inhalation toxicity of cumene sulfonic acid and its salts, however, as a solid with an extremely low vapor pressure and a particle size that is not in the respirable range, the likelihood of significant inhalation exposure to the inert ingredient as a gas, vapor, or aerosol is negligible.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
3.
Cumene sulfonic acid and its salts may be used as inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may result in indoor or outdoor residential inhalation and dermal exposures. A screening-level residential exposure and risk assessment was completed utilizing conservative residential exposure assumptions. The Agency assessed short- and intermediate-term exposures for residential handlers that would result from low pressure handwand, hose end sprayer and trigger sprayer for outdoor scenarios of each pesticide type, herbicide, insecticide and fungicide and mopping, wiping and aerosol sprays for indoor scenarios. The Agency assessed post-application short-term dermal exposure for children and adults as well as short-term hand-to-mouth exposure for children from contact with treated lawns.
Cumene sulfonic acid and its salts may also be used as a component of personal care products. The OECD SIDS assessment estimated highest human exposures resulting from personal care product use. These exposure estimates ranged from 0.02-0.14 mg/kg/day for shampoos and hair conditioners to 0.11-0.17 mg/kg/day for liquid face and hand soaps. Exposure estimates for cleaning product use and residuals on clothing range from 0.01-0.08 mg/kg/day. All exposure evaluations included conservative (protective) input assumptions (
4.
EPA has not found cumene sulfonic acid and its salts to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cumene sulfonic acid and its salts do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. While there are other chemicals belonging to the cumene sulfonic acid and its salts class of chemicals (
1.
2.
In a developmental toxicity study in rats with calcium xylene sulfonate, no maternal or developmental effects were observed at doses of 3,000 mg/kg/day (equal to 936 mg/kg/day corrected for purity of test material).
There is no evidence of prenatal or postnatal sensitivity as a result of exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate.
3.
i. Available studies included several 90-day toxicity studies via oral and dermal routes, chronic studies, mutagenicity battery, a developmental study in rats and metabolism studies. These studies provide an adequate characterization of cumene sulfonic acid and its salts toxicity.
ii. There is no indication that cumene sulfonic acid and its salts is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. No reproductive toxicity study or developmental toxicity study are available for cumene sulfonic acid and its salts. However, the concern for increased susceptibility of infants and children exposure to cumene sulfonic acid and its salts are low because no effects on reproductive parameters were observed in various oral toxicity studies and the developmental toxicity in rats for surrogate chemical show lack of systemic toxicity at doses up to 936 mg/kg/day (as discussed under Unit IV.D.2.).
iv. No evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in the database except slightly decreased in spleen weight was observed at the LOAEL of 3,454 mg/kg/day. There are no concerns for immunotoxicity and an immunotoxicity study is not required because the slight decreases in spleen weights were observed at high doses without any evidence of histopathological findings.
v. No additional uncertainty factor is needed for the use of subchronic study data for chronic exposure assessment. The rational for this decision is provided in Unit IV.B.
vi. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sodium xylene sulfonate in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cumene sulfonic acid and its salts.
Determination of safety section. EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium and zinc salts.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 and 180.930 for cumene sulfonic acid and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium,
This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces that the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area will close to Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year as of the effective date below. After the effective date, no vessel issued a Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops from the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area. Regulations require this action once it is projected that 100 percent of trips allocated to the Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area will be taken.
Effective 0001 hr local time, June 12, 2017, through March 31, 2018.
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456.
The reader can find regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas in 50 CFR 648.59 and 648.60. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) scallop permit to fish in the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area under specific conditions, including a total of 697 trips that may be taken by LAGC IFQ vessels during the 2017 fishing year. Section 648.59(g)(3)(iii) requires the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area to be closed to LAGC IFQ permitted vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the allowed number of trips for fishing year 2017 are projected to be taken.
Based on trip declarations by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area, and analysis of fishing effort, NMFS projects that 697 trips will be taken as of June 12, 2017. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.59(g)(3)(iii), NMFS is closing the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area to all LAGC IFQ scallop vessels as of June 12, 2017. No vessel issued an LAGC IFQ permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area after 0001 local time, June 12, 2017. Any LAGC IFQ vessel that has declared into the Elephant Trunk Flex Access Area scallop fishery, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitoring system demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, June 12, 2017, may complete its trip. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2017 scallop fishing year.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The Elephant Trunk Flex Access Area opened for the 2017 fishing year on March 23, 2017. The regulations at § 648.59(g)(3)(iii) require this closure to ensure that LAGC IFQ scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area. The projections of the date on which the LAGC IFQ fleet will have taken all of its allocated trips in an Access Area become apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, NMFS can only make an accurate projection very close in time to when the fleet has taken all of its trips. In order to propose a closure for purposes of receiving prior public comment, NMFS would need to make a projection based on very little information, which would result in a closure too early or too late. To allow LAGC IFQ scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area. Excessive trips and harvest from the Elephant Trunk Flex Scallop Access Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when we put these provisions in place. Current regulations prohibit LAGC IFQ scallop vessels from fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops from this area after the effective date of this notification published in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the American Pecan Council (Council) to establish the initial assessment rates for the 2016-2017 and subsequent fiscal years at $0.03 per pound for improved varieties, $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties, and $0.02 for substandard pecans handled under the pecan marketing order (order). The Council administers the order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pecans operating within the production area and a public member. Assessments upon pecan handlers would be used by the Council to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal year begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rates would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by July 13, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email:
This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 986, (7 CFR part 986), regulating the handling of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175.
This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, pecan handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rates as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable pecans beginning on October 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would establish continuing assessment rates for the 2016-2017 and subsequent fiscal years at $0.03 per pound for improved varieties and $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties and for substandard pecans handled. It is intended that the assessment rates as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable pecans beginning on October 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The order provides authority for the Council, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Council are growers and handlers of pecans and a public member. They are familiar with the Council's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their respective
For the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the Council recommended, and USDA approved, the Council's budget and the assessment rates that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Council or other information available to USDA.
The Council met on November 17, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-2017 budget expenditures of $6,000,000 and assessment rates of $0.03 per pound for improved varieties, $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties, and $0.02 per pound for substandard pecans handled. These are the first budget of expenditures and assessment rates established under this order.
The major expenditures recommended by the Council for the 2016-2017 year include $3,850,000 for marketing and promotion, $900,000 for administration, $250,000 for reporting and statistics, and $200,000 for compliance.
The assessment rates recommended by the Council were derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of pecans. Pecan shipments for the year are estimated at 260,000,000 pounds, with about 75 percent, or an estimated 195 million pounds of improved varieties, and about 25 percent of native and seedling varieties and substandard pecans. This should provide approximately $6,000,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. As the Council has no established reserve, its budget also allocated $500,000 for reserve funds to be carried into the next fiscal year. This would be within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately three fiscal years' expenses. If the assessment rates generate less money than is anticipated, the Council and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will adjust the budget accordingly.
The proposed assessment rates would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Council or other available information.
Although these assessment rates would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Council would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rates. The dates and times of Council meetings are available from the Council or USDA. Council meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Council recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rates is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Council's budget for subsequent fiscal years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
The Council also recommended reporting requirements, to include information on pecans received, shipped, exported, or in inventory, which would facilitate the collection of the assessments. These requirements are being considered under a separate action.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 2,500 producers of pecans in the production area and approximately 250 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average grower price for pecans during the 2015-2016 season was $2.20 per pound and 254 million pounds were utilized. The value for pecans in that year totaled $558.8 million ($2.20 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan producers provides a return per grower of $223,520. Using the average price and utilization information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of growers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Evidence presented at the order promulgation hearing indicates an average handler margin of $0.58 per pound for in-shell pecans for an estimated handler price of $2.78. With a total 2015 production of 254 million pounds, the total value of production in 2015 was $706.12 million ($2.78 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan handlers provides a return per handler of $2,824,480. Using this estimated price, the utilization volume, number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas may be classified as small entities.
This proposal would establish the assessment rates to be collected from handlers for the 2016-2017 and subsequent fiscal years. The Council unanimously recommended 2016-2017 expenditures of $6,000,000 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per pound for improved varieties, $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties, and $0.02 per pound for substandard pecans handled. The quantity of pecans for the 2016-2017 year is estimated at 260,000,000 pounds, with about 75 percent, or 195 million pounds of improved varieties, and about 25 percent of native and seedling varieties and substandard pecans. Thus, the proposed rates should provide $6,000,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses. If the assessment rates generate less money than is anticipated, the Council and AMS will adjust the budget accordingly.
The major expenditures recommended by the Council for the 2016-2017 fiscal year include $3,850,000 for marketing and promotion, $900,000 for administration, $250,000 for reporting and statistics, and $200,000 for compliance.
These are the first budget of expenditures and assessment rates established under this order. The Council's budget also includes a reserve of $500,000.
These are initial assessment rates for the order. The order establishes a range of assessment rates that are permissible during the initial four years of the order. Specifically improved varieties shall be initially assessed at $0.02 to $0.03 per pound and native, seedling, and substandard pecans shall be initially assessed at $0.01 to $0.02 per pound. Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rates, the Council considered information from various sources, such as the Council's Governance Committee, and its Marketing, Research, and Development Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the pecan industry.
The Council also considered different assessment levels. Some members expressed concern regarding a $0.02 assessment on native, seedling, and substandard pecans given the prices of those pecans. Another member suggested the idea of establishing a lower rate for substandard pecans. The need to collect sufficient assessments to fund the start-up costs for the order and the development of a marketing program was also noted. After consideration and discussion, the Council unanimously supported the levels as recommended.
A communication from one of the states in the production area recommending postponing the establishment of an assessment rate was also considered. The Council determined waiting until the next fiscal year to establish assessment rates would be costly in terms of time lost for a program that had been anticipated by the industry to improve its marketing. The Council also recognized that the industry had been notified through multiple outlets of communication of the possible range of assessments in the order. The Council expressed a preference to establish these rates and begin its work immediately rather than borrowing funds and being limited in its operations until the coming fiscal year. Therefore, these alternatives were rejected, and the Council ultimately determined that 2016-2017 expenditures of $6,000,000 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rates would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming production year indicates the grower price for the 2016-2017 season could range between $1.73 and $2.31 per pound for improved varieties, and between $0.88 and $1.36 per pound for native and seedling pecans. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-2017 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 1.3 and 1.7 percent for improved pecans and 1.5 and 2.2 percent for native and seedling pecans.
This action would establish an assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform for all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Council's meeting was widely publicized throughout the pecan industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Council deliberations on all issues. Like all Council meetings, the November 17, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0291 “Pecans Grown in AL, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, KS, LA, MO, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX.” No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. However, the Council is recommending reporting requirements, to include information on pecans received, shipped, exported, or in inventory, which would facilitate the collection of the assessments. These requirements are being considered under a separate action. Should any changes to the information collection requirements become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pecan handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. A 30-day period is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2016-2017 fiscal year began on October 1, 2016, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal year apply to all pecans handled during such fiscal year; (2) the Council needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Council at a public meeting. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
Marketing agreements, Pecans, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 986 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after October 1, 2016, assessment rates of $0.03 per pound for pecans classified as improved, $0.02 per pound for pecans classified as native and seedling, and $0.02 per pound for pecans classified as substandard pecans are established.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) on September 15, 2016. These revisions primarily update adoptions of Federal regulations in the Alaska SIP. The revisions also strengthen the State of Alaska's (Alaska) minor source permitting requirements and remove obsolete source-specific regulations. EPA also proposes to approve SIP revisions to Alaska's general and transportation conformity regulations submitted by ADEC on March 10, 2016. The EPA is taking action only on the conformity related portions of the March 2016 submittal. The other portions of the submittal are or will be addressed in separate actions.
Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0184, at
Randall Ruddick, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-1999; email address:
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which a state submits air quality protection requirements to EPA for approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is the state's plan to implement, maintain, and enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by EPA. Because Alaska regularly revises its state rules, and to ensure they stay consistent with Federal CAA requirements, Alaska generally submits an annual update to EPA for approval into the SIP.
On September 15, 2016, ADEC, submitted such an update. The submittal contains regulatory updates to the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) with a state effective date of August 20, 2016. These updates to AAC Title 18, Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50, Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) reflect updates to the adoption by reference date of certain Federal regulations, strengthen minor stationary source permitting rules, remove obsolete source-specific regulations, and adopt the Federal 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Transportation conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the CAA for the following transportation-related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM
On September 27, 1995, the EPA approved the general conformity rules in Article 7 of AAC Title 18, Chapter 50 into the Alaska SIP (60 FR 49765). On December 29, 1999, EPA approved ADEC's transportation conformity rules in Article 7 of 18 AAC 50 into the Alaska SIP (64 FR 72940). On March 10, 2016, ADEC submitted a request to make two modifications to the transportation conformity regulations and one modification to the general conformity regulations, discussed below.
ADEC revised 18 AAC 50 to update the adoption by reference date of certain federal regulations and documents and submitted those changes to EPA for approval into the Alaska SIP. ADEC also updated citation dates at 18 AAC 50.035(a)(3) to adopt
Alaska's major new source review (NSR) permitting rules for attainment and unclassifiable areas, 18 AAC 50, Article 3, largely adopt by reference the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) program regulations in 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21. The most recent EPA approval of revisions to Alaska's PSD permitting program was May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511), in which ADEC adopted by reference portions of 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 as in effect on December 9, 2013. ADEC recently updated 18 AAC 50.040(f) and (h) to incorporate federal revisions to portions of 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 as in effect on December 28, 2015. These updates ensure Alaska's PSD program is consistent with Federal requirements and therefore EPA is proposing to approve them.
Lastly, ADEC added language in 18 AAC 215(a)(3) to clarify that Alaska's adoption in 18 AAC 50.035(a) of both
ADEC's September 15, 2016 SIP submittal revises 18 AAC 50.345(o) to reduce the number of paper copies of source test reports required to be submitted from two copies to one copy for both minor and Title V permitted sources. This reduces paperwork, resource requirements, and associated costs without negatively affecting compliance with environmental regulations. EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's revision.
A minor source baseline date is based on a trigger date set in federal major source permitting regulations. The baseline date is calculated as the date on which the first complete PSD permit application is received after the EPA trigger date, which for fine particulate matter (PM
EPA originally approved Alaska's minor NSR program into the SIP on July 5, 1983 (48 FR 30623), and most recently approved an update to it on May 27, 2015 (80 FR 30161). ADEC has since revised its minor NSR permitting program so that it now requires all existing minor stationary sources to apply for a permit prior to undergoing a modification that will result in a potential to emit above significant emissions thresholds.
ADEC revised 18 AAC 50.542(b)(5) to clarify that the 30-day timeline for fast-tracked permit decisions is based on the receipt of a “complete” permit application. The previous language did not include the adjective “complete.” This change makes it easier for regulated entities and citizens alike to understand what is expected of both the permitting authority and the applicant.
In addition, ADEC added 18 AAC 50.542(d)(1)(F) to clarify the timing of the approval of alternative modeling in “fast track” minor source permitting. ADEC's rules now make clear that, where alternative modeling was approved outside of “fast-track” permitting procedures, a 30-day public notice and request for comment period on the decision to approve alternative modeling under 18 AAC 50.215(c)(2) is required, which will be timed, to the extent practicable, to coincide with the public comment period on the draft permit. EPA is proposing to approve these clarifications.
Alaska repealed certain source category-specific requirements applicable to fuel burning equipment in operation before November 1, 1982, that use more than 20 percent woodwaste as fuel; urea prilling towers in operation before July 1, 1972; portland cement plants; and pulp mills. Alaska determined there are no longer any sources in the state to which these repealed provisions apply. In the September 15, 2016 submittal, ADEC requested EPA remove these state-repealed provisions from the Alaska SIP. EPA proposes to approve ADEC's request to remove 18 AAC 50.055(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(7), (a)(8), (b)(4), (b)(6), (f) and 18 AAC 50.060 from Alaska's SIP because no sources are subject to these standards. Any new sources in these source categories will be regulated under Alaska's NSR process and any applicable federal regulations that apply to new sources, such as new source performance standards.
ADEC revised the ozone standard in 18 AAC 50.010(4) from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm to reflect the current (2015) Federal NAAQS for ozone. We are proposing to approve Alaska's revision to its ozone standard as consistent with Federal standards.
On August 10, 2005, the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) transportation act was signed into law, and among other things, it amended the CAA to eliminate the requirement for states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs. On April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254), EPA updated the general conformity SIP regulations to be consistent with the SAFETEA-LU transportation act by eliminating the Federal regulatory requirement for states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.851. On May 7, 2015, with a supplementary letter received July 29, 2015, ADEC submitted a request to update the transportation conformity regulations and to remove portions of the general conformity regulations from the Alaska SIP. EPA finalized action on this submittal on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735). On March 10, 2016, ADEC submitted a request to make two modifications to Alaska's transportation conformity regulations and one modification to the general conformity regulations.
Alaska's March 10, 2016, submittal revises two transportation conformity criteria and procedures. The first modification relates to interagency consultation. The modification adds a reference to a list of exempt projects to existing section 18 AAC 50.715(c)(8). The second modification relates to public involvement. New section 18 AAC 50.720(e) adds a reference to existing Alaska rules regarding charges for photocopying of information.
The modification to the general conformity regulations removes 18 AAC 50.735 from the State's SIP because it is not needed under current Federal regulations. This section is not needed because SAFETEA-LU eliminated the requirement for states to adopt and submit general conformity SIPs.
Alaska's SIP revision updates the State's general and transportation conformity provisions, 18 AAC 50, Article 7, to be consistent with the CAA as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390). EPA has reviewed ADEC's March 10, 2016, SIP submittal to assure
EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate by reference where appropriate, in Alaska's SIP, all revisions requested by Alaska on September 15, 2016 (state effective 8/20/2016) to the following provisions:
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to 18 AAC 50, Article 7, Transportation Conformity, submitted by Alaska on March 10, 2016; specifically, the revisions to transportation conformity provisions in 18 AAC 50.715, .720, and removal of the general conformity provisions in .735 as discussed in Section II.E above.
We have made the preliminary determination that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section III. Also in this rule, EPA is proposing to remove, in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to remove the incorporation by reference of provisions of 18 AAC 50.055 and 50.060 as described above in Section II (C.) and 18 AAC 50.735 as described in Section III. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rules; reopening comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce that we are reopening the comment periods for our proposed rules to list
To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on the proposed rule, we must receive your comments on or before July 13, 2017.
•
•
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
On September 9, 2016, we published proposed rules to list Guadalupe fescue as an endangered species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (81 FR 62450) and to designate its critical habitat (81 FR 62455). We sought information, data and comments from the public regarding the proposal for 60 days, ending November 8, 2016. We are reopening the comment period on the proposed rules for an additional 30 days (see
On December 29, 2016, we published a proposed rule to reclassify Tobusch fishhook cactus from an endangered to a threatened species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (81 FR 95932). We sought information, data and comments from the public regarding the proposal for 60 days, ending February 27, 2017. We are reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see
On January 6, 2017, we published a proposed rule to reclassify Kuenzler hedgehog cactus from an endangered to a threatened species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (82 FR 1677). We sought information, data and comments from the public regarding the proposal for 60 days, ending March 7, 2017. We are reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see
On January 6, 2017, we published a proposed rule to remove gypsum wild-buckwheat from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (82 FR 1657). We sought information, data and comments from the public regarding the proposal for 60 days, ending March 7, 2017. We are reopening the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see
You may submit your comments and materials concerning any of the proposed rules by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
If you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic dockets for these rulemakings are complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions on
This document's primary authors are Southwest Regional Office and Austin Ecological Services Field Office staff members.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 13, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meetings.
This is to inform the public of two additional upcoming meetings regarding the Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) system. These regional meetings will provide additional opportunities for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to hear from the public, particularly from the cattle and bison sectors, about the successes and challenges of the current ADT framework and provide a venue for the exchange of ideas about ways to overcome these challenges and fill gaps in the existing system.
The meetings will be held on July 18 and 20, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (local time) each day. We will accept written statements regarding the ADT system until July 31, 2017.
The public meetings will be held in the following locations:
•
•
You may also submit written statements using one of the following methods:
•
•
Dr. Sunny Geiser-Novotny, Cattle Health Staff/ADT Veterinarian, Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response Services, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B, Mailstop 3E13, Room 3E97, Fort Collins, CO 80526, (970) 494-7372.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
The original ADT framework, as described in the January 6, 2013, final rule
These meetings will provide additional opportunities for APHIS to hear from the public about the successes and challenges of the current ADT framework and let attendees brainstorm ideas about overcoming these challenges and finding ways to fill gaps in the existing system. Although APHIS is especially interested during these sessions to hear from cattle and bison industry members, we welcome participation from all members of the public.
Each meeting will start with an overview of the basic principles of ADT and progress made to date given by APHIS employees and a panel of State and industry representatives. A comment/question and answer session will follow. After a break for lunch, attendees will split off into breakout sessions to discuss challenge areas and come up with solutions. The entire group will reconvene to receive the highlights of the breakout sessions, and the meeting will end after some discussion of next steps and closing remarks.
If you are planning to attend a meeting, we ask that you register in advance by visiting
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with transferring of farm records from one FSA county office to another.
We will consider comments that we receive by August 14, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this Notice. In your comment, include volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments will be available for inspection online at
Melonie Sullivan, (202) 690-1003. Persons with disabilities or who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).
• A change has occurred in the operation of the land; or
• there has been a change that would cause the receiving county office to be more accessible, including, but not limited to, the construction of a new highway, relocation of the county office building site; or
• when an FSA county office closes.
FSA County Committees from both the transferring and receiving counties must approve or disapprove all proposed farm record transfers. If the FSA County Committee is not able to approve the request based on one of the criteria in 7 CFR 718.8(e), then the State Committee would need to submit an exception request to the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
The estimate of the average time to respond includes the estimate for the time to collect and provide the information, including travel time to the local FSA county office. Public reporting burden for collecting information under this notice is estimated to average 10 minutes per response (0.167 hours), including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The average travel time, which is included in the total annual burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent. Therefore, the total estimate of the average time to respond is 1.167 hours.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information from those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget Approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lassen County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Susanville, California. 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 the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 29, 2017, from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
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 the Lassen National Forest Supervisor's Office, in the Caribour Conference Room, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Matthew Boisseau, District Ranger/RAC Coordinator, by phone at (530) 768-4109 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 to discuss how the committee will review and prioritize projects at the upcoming RAC meeting held on Thursday, August 31, 2017.
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 Friday, June 23, 2017, 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 Matthew Boisseau, District Ranger/RAC Coordinator, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, California 96130; or by email to
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6 p.m. (MDT) on July 18, 2017 at the University of Denver, Bldg. 26, Sturm Hall (Building 26), Lindsey Auditorium (Room 281), 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to hear testimony on the impact of the Blaine Amendment (Colorado's No Aid Clause) in Colorado.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. MDT.
University of Denver, Sturm Hall, Lindsey Auditorium (Rm. 281), 2000 E. Asbury Ave., Denver, CO 80208.
Evelyn Bohor at
The Colorado Advisory Committee will hear from individuals with expertise on Colorado's No Aid Clause. The Committee will examine the history of the Blaine Amendment, those in favor of continued use and those in favor of modifying or eliminating use of the Blaine Amendment in Colorado. Through testimony, the Committee will receive information on the effects of the Blaine Amendment on the civil rights of a wide range of families in Colorado's schools.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at
Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Friday, August 18, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for
The FTZ Board is inviting public comment on its staff's preliminary recommendation pertaining to the application of The Coleman Company, Inc. (Coleman) requesting unrestricted production authority within Subzone 119I at the Coleman facility located in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. Specifically, the application requests unrestricted authority to produce personal flotation devices and flotation cushions using the following inputs in foreign status: Certain nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; knit polyester fleece fabrics; and, water soluble sensing elements. The FTZ Board staff's analysis of the evidence currently on the record of the proceeding indicates that the applicant has not met the burden of proof as it pertains to the criteria for approval under the FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400). Therefore, the staff's preliminary recommendation is to not approve the requested authority.
Public comment is invited through July 31, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until August 15, 2017. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below.
A summary of the FTZ Board's staff's analysis and preliminary recommendation 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 Diane Finver at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 9, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015. The review covers eight producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, including the two respondents selected for individual examination: Maquilacero, S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) and Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos, S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our preliminary findings for Regiopytsa. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed producers/exporters are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”
Effective June 13, 2017.
Mark Flessner or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
On December 9, 2016, the Department published in the
The POR is November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015.
The products covered by the order are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes. The merchandise covered by the order and subject to this review is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded, is attached to this notice as an appendix.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to Regiopytsa's margin calculation. Additionally, we made certain changes to the assessment rates for both mandatory respondents. These changes are fully discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Consistent
The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Lamina y Placa and Mueller reported that they made no sales of subject merchandise during the POR.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The Department will instruct CBP to apply an
Additionally, because the Department determined that Lamina y Placa and Mueller had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under those companies' case numbers (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Conduit, Maquilacero, Prolamsa, Regiopytsa, and Ternium will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 32.62 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Manuel Rey, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5518.
On April 10, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
• First, the Department omitted from the
• Second, we initiated the review for Hindustan Lever, Ltd., a company for which no review was requested.
• Third, we initiated the review on duplicate companies.
• Finally, we made typographical errors in the name of several companies.
The Department is hereby correcting the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice, request for public comment.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), on behalf of the Department of Commerce (Department), is requesting comment on actions that can be taken to address automated and distributed threats to the digital ecosystem as part of the activity directed by the President in Executive Order 13800, “Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure.” Through this Request for Comments (RFC), NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders—including private industry, academia, civil society, and other security experts—on ways to improve industry's ability to reduce threats perpetuated by automated distributed attacks, such as botnets, and what role, if any, the U.S. Government should play in this area.
Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 13, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted by email to
Megan Doscher, tel.: (202) 482-2503, email:
As part of this effort, the Department will also host a public workshop at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence on July 11-12, 2017, entitled, “Enhancing Resilience of the Communications Ecosystem.” Outputs from this workshop will also help to guide implementation activities related to the President's Executive Order. More information about the workshop will be available on the NIST Web site at:
The Federal government has worked with stakeholders in the past to address new threats as they arise. Previous efforts include the White House-led Industry Botnet Group
The Department has played an important role in facilitating engagement around cybersecurity between public policy interests and the innovative force of the private sector. The Department was tasked to work with industry to develop a framework
The private sector is also playing a key role in tackling botnets. Internet service providers in the United States and around the world have been experimenting with how to notify customers that their devices may be involved in an attack. Standards bodies have offered guidance on how to mitigate some styles of attacks.
The cybersecurity challenge is particularly vexing because it involves adaptive adversaries. Existing tools, institutions, and initiatives are critical, but we must acknowledge that the threat continues to evolve, and more progress is needed, at an accelerated rate, to address the current landscape. The DDoS attacks launched from the Mirai botnet in the fall of 2016, for example, reached a level of sustained traffic that overwhelmed many common DDoS mitigation tools and services, and even targeted a Domain Name System (DNS) service that was a commonly used component in many DDoS mitigation strategies.
It is difficult to predict what the next significant attack vector will be, but that should not preclude taking steps to mitigate the potential impact of those that are known. Left unchecked, without meaningful progress, these new classes of automated and distributed attacks could be a serious risk to the entire ecosystem. Since poorly considered action would likely create significant unnecessary costs and unintended consequences, substantial, carefully considered action must be considered, and it is most likely to be effective and efficient if built on engagement from all stakeholders across the ecosystem.
The goal of this RFC is to solicit informed suggestions and feedback on current, emerging, and potential approaches for dealing with botnets and other automated, distributed threats and their impact. The Department is interested in comments that address all aspects of this issue, but particularly those that address two broad approaches where substantial progress can be made:
•
•
Respondents are invited to respond to some or all of the questions below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Comments submitted by mail may be in hard copy (paper) or electronic (on CD-ROM or disk). Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted on the NTIA Web site,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Commission statement.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) is publishing this statement concerning a request for an interpretation as to whether a particular agreement is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.
Eileen T. Flaherty, Director, (202) 418-5326,
On February 7, 2017, Commission staff received a letter from Breakaway Courier Corporation (“Breakaway”), through its counsel, requesting a joint interpretation from the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”, and, together with the Commission, the “Commissions”) pursuant to Commission regulation 1.8 as to whether a particular agreement is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.
The Commission and the SEC jointly adopted Commission regulation 1.8 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of Commission regulation 1.8, the Commission is declining to issue a joint interpretation with the SEC in connection with Breakaway's request.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Acting Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioner Bowen voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of public hearing.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive views from all interested parties about the Commission's agenda and priorities for fiscal year 2018, which begins on October 1, 2017, and for fiscal year 2019, which begins on October 1, 2018. We invite members of the public to participate. Written comments and oral presentations concerning the Commission's agenda and priorities for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 will become part of the public record.
The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. on July 26, 2017, and will conclude the same day. Requests to make oral presentations and the written text of any oral presentations must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on July 12, 2017. The Commission will accept written comments as well. These also must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than 5 p.m. EDT on July 12, 2017.
The hearing will be in the Hearing Room, 4th Floor of the Bethesda Towers Building, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Requests to make oral presentations, and texts of oral presentations and written comments should be captioned, “Agenda and Priorities FY 2018 and/or 2019,” and sent by electronic mail (email) to:
For information about the hearing, or to request an opportunity to make an oral presentation, please send an email, call, or write Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email:
Section 4(j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2053(j)) requires the Commission to establish an agenda for action under the laws the Commission administers, and to the extent feasible, select priorities for action at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 4(j) of the CPSA provides further that before establishing its agenda and priorities, the Commission conduct a public hearing and provide an opportunity for the submission of comments.
The Commission is in the process of preparing the agency's fiscal year 2018 Operating Plan and fiscal year 2019 Congressional Budget Request. Fiscal year 2018 begins on October 1, 2017, and fiscal year 2019 begins on October 1, 2018. Through this notice, the Commission invites the public to comment on the following questions:
1. What are the priorities the Commission should consider emphasizing and dedicating resources toward in the fiscal year 2018 Operating Plan and/or the fiscal year 2019 Congressional Budget Request?
2. What activities should the Commission consider deemphasizing in the fiscal year 2018 Operating Plan and/or the fiscal year 2019 Congressional Budget Request?
3. What retrospective review of rules should the Commission consider in the fiscal year 2018 Operating Plan and/or the fiscal year 2019 Congressional Budget Request, consistent with the Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules adopted by the Commission on April 1, 2016?
4. The CPSC's programs will align with the strategic goals outlined in the CPSC's 2016- 2020 Strategic Plan. The CPSC's fiscal year 2018 Budget Request, submitted to Congress on May 23, 2017, is based on four agency priorities: (1) Focusing the agency's resources on the highest-priority consumer product safety risks; (2) continuing to support import surveillance by incrementally developing the Risk Assessment Methodology (RAM) system to identify and stop noncompliant imported products from entering the U.S. marketplace; (3) emphasizing outreach and education by engaging all stakeholders through forums and workshops; and (4) expanding the sources and types of data analysis used to identify and assess product safety risks and inform compliance decisions. The Commission requests comments on the priorities as presented in the FY 2018 Budget Request. The CPSC's Budget Request for fiscal year 2018 can be found at:
Persons who desire to make oral presentations at the hearing on July 26, 2017 should send an email, call, or write Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email:
If you do not want to make an oral presentation, but would like to provide written comments, you may do so. Please submit written comments in the manner described in the previous paragraph. Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on July 12, 2017.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Announcement of meeting.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission, or we) staff is holding a workshop on potential ways to improve the effectiveness of consumer product recalls. We invite interested parties to attend the workshop.
The workshop will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on July 25, 2017. Individuals interested in attending the workshop should register by July 3, 2017. Suggestions for additional topics for the workshop should be submitted by June 23, 2017.
The workshop will be held in the Hearing Room at CPSC's headquarters at: 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. There is no charge to attend the workshop. Persons interested in attending the workshop should register online at:
If you have suggestions for additional topics for the workshop, please submit them to
Joseph Williams, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone 301-504-7585; email:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has the authority to require corrective actions, also called “recalls,” of consumer products that present a substantial product hazard. 15 U.S.C. 2064(c). Most recalls of consumer products are conducted voluntarily by firms that work with the CPSC to develop a corrective action plan that will protect the public from potentially unsafe products. Recalls generally include notice to the public and some remedial measure, such as repair or replacement of the product or refund to the purchaser. The CPSC's regulations at 16 CFR 1115.20 and its Recall Handbook,
The CPSC continually strives to enhance the effectiveness of recalls. In furtherance of this goal, CPSC will hold a workshop to engage stakeholders to explore ideas for improving the effectiveness of recalls.
The goal of the workshop is to explore and develop proactive measures CPSC and stakeholders can take to improve recall effectiveness,
We have identified some broad topics for discussion, but would also like to include topics that stakeholders believe would be beneficial to discuss. The workshop will have a group discussion of what makes an effective recall, how to measure success, as well as some common obstacles. We will then break out into smaller groups for discussion of topics such as:
We anticipate that, after the workshop, staff will (1) develop a list of suggestions and ideas from stakeholders that we will share; and (2) create a summary report on key findings and suggestions for follow up.
SAF/MRBB, Department of the Air Force, DOD.
Notice.
Under the provisions specified in the
Persons with information or documentation pertinent to the determination of whether service of this group should be considered active military service to the Armed Forces of the United States are encouraged to submit such information or documentation within 60 days from June 13, 2017 to the DoD Civilian/Military Service Review Board (DoDC/MSRB) address specified in the
DoD Civilian/Military Service Review Board (DoD C/MSRB), 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700, Joint Base Andrews NAF, MD 20762-7002.
Mr. Thomas R. Uiselt, Deputy Executive Secretary, DoD C/MSRB, at (240) 612-5409,
The Department of Defense Civilian/Military Service Review Board accepted the application under the provisions of Section 401, Public Law 95-202 and DoD Directive 100.20.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for the High School Career and Technical Education Teacher Pathway Initiative, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.051D.
Laura Messenger, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Room 11028, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone: (202) 245-7840 or by fax at (202) 245-7170.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The purpose of the High School Career and Technical Education (CTE) Teacher Pathway Initiative is to improve CTE programs assisted under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (the Perkins Act) by increasing the supply of high school CTE teachers available to teach students in CTE programs that align to In-Demand Industry Sectors or Occupations
Forty-two Governors have delivered their 2017 State of the State addresses, and workforce development and CTE have emerged as a strong priority—the second most popular education topic mentioned in Governors' State of the State addresses, after school financing.
Several factors contribute to overall teacher shortages in many States and communities, including a decline in teacher preparation program enrollments, increasing student enrollments, and high teacher attrition rates.
Several States are working to increase the number of CTE teachers, including through changes to laws and regulations. A majority of States have implemented alternative certification requirements for individuals seeking to become CTE teachers.
Some school districts facing shortages of CTE teachers are considering new pipelines to hire and retain CTE teachers. For example, one large, urban school district has identified teachers who had worked in industry and are interested in a CTE credential. Other districts, through partnerships with local industry and local government agencies, are offering teachers interested in earning a CTE credential the opportunity to earn the required 1,000 hours of industry experience during the school day and through paid summer externships.
Some districts across the country are utilizing more strategic hiring practices, offering signing bonuses and traveling out of State to recruit teachers. Through local partnerships, some communities with a high cost of living are offering housing as a means to attract new teachers.
Rural districts often struggle with teacher shortages across many subject areas, but shortages in CTE often result in a lack of access to CTE programming connected to local or regional labor demands. Partnerships with institutions of higher education that offer alternative teacher certification programs to community members who are interested in staying in the community while earning a CTE teacher credential, often referred to as “grow your own” models, are another approach that may assist rural and smaller communities in addressing the CTE teacher shortage.
If left unaddressed, the high school CTE teacher shortage will limit State and local capacity to deliver CTE programs for In-demand Industry Sectors or Occupations. Through this competition, under the Secretary's authority in section 114(c) of the Perkins Act to carry out capacity building and provide technical assistance to Perkins grantees with regard to the CTE programs under the Perkins Act, the Secretary will support State and local efforts to increase the supply and quality of high school CTE teachers in In-Demand Industry Sectors or Occupations in States and communities where such shortages exist.
This priority is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must provide, from other Federal or non-Federal sources, a cash or in-kind match that is equal to or greater than 20 percent of the amount of the requested grant award amount, calculated consistent with 2 CFR part 200.306. Each applicant, in its application, must provide a signed assurance attesting to its intent and ability to meet this requirement, and must include its matching contribution in its budget for the proposed project. Applicants may propose to use funds available to them under the Perkins Act to meet this matching requirement.
This priority is:
The Secretary is particularly interested in receiving applications that propose a state-wide or regional approach to increasing the supply and quality of high school CTE teachers in In-demand Industry Sectors or Occupations in LEAs that are eligible for assistance under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department's Web site at
The application requirements are:
(1) Each applicant must identify the category under which the applicant meets the eligibility requirements set forth under Eligible Applicants in section III of this notice and provide an assurance from the authorizing representative that the applicant is an eligible applicant.
(2) Each applicant, in its application, must provide a signed assurance attesting to its intent and ability to meet the matching requirement in the Absolute Priority, and must include its matching contribution in its budget for the proposed project.
(3) Each applicant must submit a Logic Model demonstrating that the proposed project is supported by a Strong Theory by providing a graphic depiction (suggested length of no longer than one page) and a narrative explanation of the project's Logic Model, to illustrate how the applicant's proposed project will achieve intended outcomes and increase recruitment and retention of high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation.
The program requirements are:
A grantee must carry out one or more activities designed to increase recruitment and retention of high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation, in States or communities where shortages of such teachers exist, such as—
(a) Establishing, improving, or expanding activities to recruit high
(b) Establishing, improving, or expanding alternative routes for State certification of high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation;
(c) Establishing, improving, or expanding teacher induction and mentoring programs to improve the preparation and retention of new high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation;
(d) Establishing, improving, or expanding local partnerships of community organizations, institutions of higher education, and school districts that support mid-career business and industry professionals, military veterans, parents, students, community members, and paraprofessionals in becoming CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation;
(e) Establishing, improving, or expanding Teacher Residency Programs, as defined in this notice, to recruit and retain high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation;
(f) Implementing differential pay, or other financial incentives, such as signing bonuses, student loan repayment, or scholarships, to recruit and retain high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation;
(g) Establishing or redesigning teacher preparation programs to better meet the demand for effective high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation;
(h) Establishing or expanding interstate teacher certification or licensure reciprocity agreements to enable CTE teachers who are licensed or certified in one State to teach in another State without completing additional licensure or certification requirements in CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation; and
(i) Developing and implementing programs and initiatives to remove barriers to recruiting and retaining high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation.
A grantee must carry out a High School CTE Teacher Pathway Initiative project in collaboration with partner organizations such as community organizations, institutions of higher education, school districts, State or local agencies, or businesses. An applicant must identify the partner organizations included in its application and include a letter of commitment from each entity with which it will partner to implement the proposed project.
Under 34 CFR 75.591, all grantees must cooperate in any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department.
The definitions of Career and Technical Education and Eligible Institution are from section 3 of the Perkins Act (20 U.S.C. 2301
(1) Offer a sequence of courses that—
(a) Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;
(b) Provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(c) May include prerequisite courses (other than a remedial course) that meet the requirements of this definition; and
(2) Include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual.
(A)(1) An industry sector that has a substantial current or potential impact (including through jobs that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate, and that contributes to the growth or stability of other supporting businesses, or the growth of other industry sectors; or
(2) An occupation that currently has or is projected to have a number of positions (including positions that lead to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) in an industry sector so as to have a significant impact on the State, regional, or local economy, as appropriate.
(B) The determination of whether an industry sector or occupation is in-demand under this definition shall be made by the State board or local board,
(1) For not less than one academic year, teaches alongside an effective teacher, as determined by the State or LEA, who is the teacher of record for the classroom;
(2) Receives concurrent instruction during the year described in paragraph (1)—
(a) Through courses that may be taught by LEA personnel or by faculty of the teacher preparation program; and
(b) In the teaching of the content area in which the teacher will become certified or licensed; and
(3) Acquires effective teaching skills, as demonstrated through completion of a residency program, or other measure determined by the State, which may include a teacher performance assessment.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(a) A State board designated or created consistent with State law as the sole State agency responsible for the administration of CTE in the State or for the supervision of the administration of CTE in the State;
(b) An LEA (including a public charter school that operates as an LEA), an area CTE school, an educational service agency, or a consortium of such entities, in each case, that receives assistance under section 131 of the Act;
(c) An Eligible Institution that receives assistance under section 132 of the Act.
Eligible applicants proposing to apply for funds as a consortium must comply with the regulations in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129, which address group applications.
2. a.
b.
1.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2. a.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
•
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
b.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public upon request, you may wish to request
3.
A pre-application webinar will be held for this competition shortly after the date that this notice will publish. The webinar is intended to provide technical assistance to all interested grant applicants. Information regarding the pre-application webinar can be found on the Perkins Collaborative Resource Network at
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a.
Applications for grants under the High School CTE Teacher Pathway Initiative, CFDA number 84.051D, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the High School CTE Teacher Pathway Initiative competition at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
•
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened, non-fillable files. Therefore, do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a) Need for the project. (20 points)
The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(1) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project. (up to 10 points)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated. (up to 10 points)
(b) Quality of the project design. (50 points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the project design. In determining the quality of the project design for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by Strong Theory, as defined in this notice. (up to 10 points)
(2) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement. (up to 20 points)
(3) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services. (up to 10 points)
(4) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate for, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (up to 10 points)
(c) Adequacy of resources (30 points).
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers—
(1) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project. (up to 10 points)
(2) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project. (up to 10 points)
(3) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support. (up to 10 points)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.117. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
(a) An increase in the number of individuals recruited and hired to be high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation; and
(b) An increase in the retention rate of high school CTE teachers for CTE programs that align to an In-Demand Industry Sector or Occupation.
In addition to these measures, applicants may establish interim or other measures that they think will be useful in measuring positive project outcomes, such as: an increase in the number of induction or mentoring programs being implemented for new and returning high school CTE teachers; an increase in the number of individuals teaching in high school CTE programs under emergency or alternative credentials; an increase in the number of high school CTE teachers participating in induction and mentoring programs; or an increase in the number of new and returning high school CTE teachers who express satisfaction with the level of induction and mentoring support that they have received. Grantees will be responsible for collecting and reporting data annually on the required performance measures as well as any other performance measures they choose to establish for their High School CTE Teacher Pathway Initiative project.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jean Yan, 202-205-6212.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Notice document 2017-11760, appearing on pages 26476-26477, in the Issue of Wednesday, June 7, 2017, was inadvertently published and is withdrawn from that Issue.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Solar Star Oregon II, 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 June 27, 2017.
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 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
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:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission in Project No. 2100-000 and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
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.
On June 7, 2017, a letter order was issued in Docket No. EL17-71-000 by the Director, Division of Electric Power—Central, Office of Energy Market Regulation, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the proposed rate decrease of DTE Electric Company associated with its cost-based revenue requirements for the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. region may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-71-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-71-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
On March 16, 2017, Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C (Florida Gas) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-79-000 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 proposed project is known as the Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project (Project), and would relocate and replace sections of the existing Florida Gas 12-inch-diameter and 26-inch-diameter Sanford Lateral pipelines that conflict with construction of the Florida Department of Transportation's Wekiva Parkway.
On March 29, 2017, 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.
The Project would abandon in place and relocate 4.60 miles of 12-inch-diameter Sanford Lateral pipeline and 3.16 miles of 26-inch-diameter Sanford Lateral Loop pipeline in Lake and Seminole Counties, Florida. The Project intent is to resolve conflicts between the existing pipeline facilities and construction of the Florida Department of Transportation's new State Road (SR) 429, Wekiva Parkway. Florida Gas proposes to relocate the affected pipeline sections to new adjacent right-of-way abutting the north side of existing SR 429 right-of-way.
On April 18, 2017, 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 Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA 210(m)(3) 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 received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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:
Southwestern Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of public review and comment on proposed extension.
The Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern), completed an annual review of the continuing adequacy of the existing hydroelectric power rates for the Integrated System which are in effect through September 30, 2017. This review, included within the 2017 Integrated System Power Repayment Study (PRS), indicated the need for a revenue adjustment of 0.7 percent to continue to satisfy cost recovery criteria. Because the 0.7 percent revenue adjustment is within Southwestern's established ± 2 percent rate adjustment threshold, the Administrator has deferred the revenue adjustment and is proposing, to the Deputy Secretary for interim approval, a two-year extension of the Integrated System Rate Schedules for the period October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019. Southwestern's current Integrated System Rate Schedules P-13, NFTS-13A, and EE-13 are set to expire September 30, 2017.
Written comments are due on or before July 13, 2017.
Comments should be submitted to Marshall Boyken, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Office of Corporate Operations, Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, (918) 595-6646,
Marshall Boyken, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Office of Corporate Operations, Southwestern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, (918) 595-6646,
Originally established by Secretarial Order No. 1865 of the Secretary of the Interior dated August 31, 1943, Southwestern is a Federal Power Marketing Administration within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), transferred to DOE by the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, dated August 4, 1977. Guidelines for rate extensions are under Title 10, subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 903.23). Procedures for the confirmation and approval of rates for the Federal Power Marketing Administrations are found at Title 18, chapter I, subchapter L of the Code of Federal Regulations (18 CFR part 300).
Southwestern markets power from 24 multi-purpose reservoir projects with hydroelectric power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). These projects are located in the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Southwestern's marketing area includes these states plus Kansas and Louisiana. The costs associated with the hydropower facilities of 22 of the 24 projects are repaid via revenues received under the Integrated System rates, as are the costs associated with Southwestern's transmission facilities that consist of 1,380 miles of high-voltage transmission lines, 27 substations, and 46 microwave and VHF radio sites. Costs associated with the Sam Rayburn and Robert D. Willis Dams, two Corps projects that are isolated hydraulically, electrically, and financially from the Integrated System, are repaid by separate rate schedules and are not addressed in this notice.
Southwestern's current Integrated System Rate Schedules (P-13, NFTS-13A, and EE-13) are based on the 2013 PRS. Each subsequent annual PRS, through 2017, has indicated the need for a revenue adjustment that fell within a plus or minus two percent range. It is Southwestern's practice to defer revenue adjustments for the Integrated System if such adjustments are within plus or minus two percent of the revenue estimated from the current Integrated System Rate Schedules. The deferral of a revenue adjustment (rate change) provides for rate stability and savings on the administrative cost of implementation, and recognizes that the revenue sufficiency will be re-examined in the following year's PRS. Therefore, in line with the annual PRS results, Southwestern has deferred revenue adjustments in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. The most recent deferral was in response to the 2017 Integrated System PRS, which concluded that the annual revenues needed to be increased by 0.7 percent. It was determined to be prudent to defer the increase in accordance with the established ± 2 percent
Therefore, Southwestern is proposing an extension of the current Integrated System Rate Schedules, for the period October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019. In accordance with 10 CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), the Deputy Secretary of Energy may extend existing rates on an interim basis beyond the period specified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
The current Integrated System Rate Schedules were placed in effect on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary of Energy effective September 1, 2013, and were confirmed and approved by the
The Administrator will review and consider all written comments and the information gathered when submitting the finalized Integrated System Rate Schedules Extension to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for confirmation and approval on an interim basis.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; reopening of comment period.
EPA issued a notice in the
Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by July 13, 2017.
Follow the detailed instructions provided under
Jonathan Skinner-Thompson, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-0291; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address:
This document reopens the public comment period established in the
To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under
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, June 29, 2017, 10:00 a.m.
Request 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
Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 17-542 released June 5, 2017. 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 document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via the Internet at
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The FTC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the FTC's enforcement of the information collection requirements in its “Fair Credit Reporting Risk-Based Pricing Regulations” (“RBP Rule”), which applies to certain motor vehicle dealers, and its shared enforcement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) of the risk-based pricing provisions (subpart H) of the CFPB's Regulation V regarding other entities. That clearance expires on July 31, 2017.
Comments must be filed by July 13, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Katherine White, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2878, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room CC-8232, Washington, DC 20580.
On March 3, 2017, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements (creditor disclosures to consumers) associated with the RBP Rule and the Commission's shared enforcement with the CFPB of subpart H of Regulation V (March 3, 2017 Notice
(a) Obtaining those reports, including (i) the direct costs from the CRA's, (ii) the personnel costs associated with obtaining the reports, and (b) the direct and indirect costs of properly handling, storing, and disposing of that sensitive personally identifiable information.
Additionally, NADA contended that the FTC's estimate of hours burden does not contemplate the burden associated with “obtaining, and properly handling, storing, and disposing of the information in the [credit] reports.”
The FTC believes that its burden estimates do not need to be increased. NADA's suggestion that compliance with the Rule compels its members to purchase consumer credit scores is incorrect. Automobile dealers, and all other respondents, are covered by the Rule
NADA's comment focuses on automobile dealers that are engaged in three-party financing transactions, in which a dealer agrees to extend financing to a consumer and then assigns the loan to a third party, such as a bank or financing company. In this scenario, automobile dealers will obtain certain personal information from consumers, along with an authorization to obtain their consumer reports, and will shop the information to several potential financing sources. These financing sources will pull consumer reports in order to determine the “buy rate” at which the financing source would agree to purchase the contract. The automobile dealer uses a consumer report in setting the retail financing rate for the credit because it uses the “buy rate” offered by the third-party financing source to set the rate offered to the consumer. In some instances, the dealer may not have physically accessed the consumer report. Nevertheless, the FTC has always maintained that the Rule covers these dealers since they are the original creditor in a transaction that uses a consumer report in connection with an application for, or a grant, extension, or other provision of, credit. The FTC's interpretation of the Rule was upheld by the DC District Court in
This interpretation that dealers are “original” creditors under the Rule does not impose the vast costs that NADA suggests. As the court in
Moreover, automobile dealers already handle, maintain, store, and dispose of sensitive personal information about consumers (
Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “RBP Rule, PRA Comment, P145403” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC Web site to read this Notice. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 13, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of availability, and request for comment.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the availability of Toxicological Profiles for review and comment. All toxicological profiles issued as “Drafts for Public Comment” represent ATSDR's best efforts to provide important toxicological information on priority hazardous substances. ATSDR is seeking public comments and additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of these four substances for review and potential inclusion in the profiles.
Although ATSDR considers key studies for these substances during the profile development process, this document solicits any relevant, additional studies. ATSDR will evaluate the quality and relevance of such data or studies for possible inclusion into the profile. ATSDR remains committed to providing a public comment period for these documents as a means to best serve public health and the public.
Comments must be submitted by September 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATSDR-2014-0002, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Commander Jessilynn B. Taylor, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30329, Email:
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
In addition, CERCLA provides ATSDR with the authority to prepare toxicological profiles for substances not found on the SPL. CERCLA authorizes ATSDR to establish and maintain inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances (CERCLA Section 104(i)(1)(B)); to respond to requests for health consultations (CERCLA Section 104(i)(4)); and to support the site-specific response actions conducted by the agency.
The Draft Toxicological Profiles are available online at
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice with request for comment.
This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (AOA-HFAP) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for Ambulatory Surgical Centers that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 13, 2017.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3343-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
Monda Shaver, (410) 786-0310, Erin McCoy, (410) 786-2337, or Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899.
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 Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an ASC. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 416 specify the conditions that an ASC must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services, and the conditions for Medicare payment for ASCs.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, an ASC must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 416 of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the ASC is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. An AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of an AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this notice of proposed recognition is to inform the public of the American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program's (AOA-HFAP's) request for continued CMS approval of its ASC accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether AOA-HFAP's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage (CfCs) for ASCs.
AOA-HFAP submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued CMS approval of its ASC accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on April 14, 2017. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5, our review and evaluation of AOA-HFAP will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of AOA-HFAP's standards for ASCs as compared with Medicare's CfCs for ASCs.
• AOA-HFAP's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of AOA-HFAP's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ AOA-HFAP's processes and procedures for monitoring an ASC found out of compliance with AOA-HFAP's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when AOA-HFAP identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)(1).
++ AOA-HFAP's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ AOA-HFAP's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of AOA-HFAP's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ AOA-HFAP's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ AOA-HFAP's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ AOA-HFAP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey, together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the
This document 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
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Dr. Natalie Greco, 301-761-7898;
Technology description follows.
Due to the disorganized nature of blood vessels that run through tumors, chemotherapeutic agents often fail to penetrate tumors and kill cancer cells at the tumor's center. This can lead to ineffective chemotherapeutic treatments, because tumors can quickly grow back if the entire tumor is not destroyed. NIH researchers have developed a therapeutic agent that solves this problem facing current chemotherapy treatments. By elegantly
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
Therapeutic agent for a wide range of human and veterinary solid tumors, including:
• Proven effective in a variety of models, including models of important veterinary cancers.
• Agent is only active in tumor micro-environments, resulting in low toxicity to healthy tissue.
• Cancer cells are not directly targeted, so this agent can be used to treat a broad spectrum of solid tumors and resistance is unlikely to arise.
• Fills an unmet need in cancer therapy, because few non-surgical treatments exist.
In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, was renewed for an additional two-year period on May 31, 2017.
It is determined that the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—A, June 15, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to June 16, 2017, 5:00 p.m., Cambria Suites Rockville, 1 Helen Heneghan Way, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from June 15-16, 2017 to June 15, 2017. The meeting is closed to the public.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Reinstatement.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for reinstatement and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The reinstatement submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before July 13, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, email address
This information collection previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for reinstatement and clearance.
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, 404-679-7097 (telephone) or 404-679-7081 (fax).
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 renewal of their permit to take (capture, identify, and release) the yellowcheek darter (
The applicant requests an amendment to her application to take (capture with mist-nets and harp traps, handle, band, and radio-tag) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture with mist-nets and harp traps, handle, and radio-tag) gray bats (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture with bowl traps or sweep nets) the rusty-patched bumble bee (
The applicant requests amendment of their permit to add authorization to take (capture on beach, restrain, handle, take standard carapace measurements, PIT-tag, flipper tag, collect 10 milliliters of blood from the cervical sinus, and satellite tag a subset of individuals) up to 5 Kemp's ridley sea turtles (
The applicant requests renewal of his permit to continue take (capture with mist-nets, band, collect blood samples, monitor nests) of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (
The applicant requests renewal of her permit to continue take (enter hibernacula and roosts, capture with mist nets and harp traps, handle, identify, band, attach radio transmitters, and light-tag) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests a permit to take (collect from the wild, collect tissues, hold in captivity, mark, and release) 48 endangered freshwater mussel species for captive propagation, research, and reintroduction in Tennessee.
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to continue authorization to take (enter hibernacula or maternity roost caves, capture with mist nets or harp traps, handle, identify, band, and radio-tag) Indiana bats (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture with mist-nets, handle, band, and radio-tag) Indiana bats (
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act.
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 for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits certain activities that may impact endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 13, 2017.
Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) 628-2670 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for copies to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed above in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of boundary revision.
The boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is modified to include 46 acres of land located in Benzie County, Michigan, immediately adjacent to the boundary of the national lakeshore. The United States will purchase, from willing sellers, two parcels containing 45 acres of land. The third parcel contains one acre and will be acquired by donation.
The effective date of this boundary revision is June 13, 2017.
The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Chief Realty Officer Daniel L. Betts, National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102, telephone (402) 661-1780.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100506(c), the boundary of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is modified to include 46 acres of adjacent land identified as Tracts 46-162, 67-161, and 67-162. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 634/129,621, dated June 2016.
54 U.S.C. 100506(c) provides that, after notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted this investigation effective June 30, 2016, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Weldbend Corporation, Argo, Illinois and Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P., Houston, Texas. The final phase of this investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain were sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on June 7, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4696 (June 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearings.
Following receipt of a petition for import relief, as amended and properly filed on June 5, 2017, the Commission has instituted investigation No. TA-201-76 pursuant to section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) to determine whether large residential washers (“LRWs”) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles. The Commission
Effective June 5, 2017.
Michael Szustakowski (202-205-3169), 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 (
The articles covered by this investigation are all LRWs and certain parts thereof. For purposes of this petition, the term LRWs denotes all automatic clothes washing machines, regardless of the orientation of the rotational axis, with a cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of at least 24.5 inches (62.23 cm) and no more than 32.0 inches (81.28 cm), except as noted below.
Also covered are certain parts used in large residential washers, namely: (1) All cabinets, or portions thereof, designed for use in large residential washers; (2) all assembled tubs
Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial washers. The term “stacked washer-dryers” denotes distinct washing and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term “commercial washer” denotes an automatic clothes washing machine designed for the “pay per use” segment meeting either of the following two definitions:
(1)(a) It contains payment system electronics;
(2)(a) it contains payment system electronics; (b) the payment system electronics are enabled (whether or not the payment acceptance device has been installed at the time of importation) such that, in normal operation,
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a vertical rotational axis; (2) are top loading;
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a horizontal rotational axis; (2) are front loading;
Also excluded from the scope are automatic clothes washing machines that meet all of the following conditions: (1) Have a horizontal rotational axis; (2) are front loading; and (3) have cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of more than 28.5 inches (72.39 cm).
For Customs purposes, the LRWs covered by the investigation are provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 8450.20.00. LRWs and certain parts thereof subject to this petition may also be imported under HTSUS subheadings 8450.11.00, 8450.90.20, and 8450.90.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this petition is dispositive.
The Commission may include CBI in the reports it sends to the President and to the U.S. Trade Representative. Additionally, all information, including CBI, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used by (i) the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any CBI in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
Any additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such a submission, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with section 201.16(c) 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 by the service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation 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 206, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 206).
This investigation is being conducted under authority of Section 202 of the Act; this notice is published pursuant to section 203(b)(3) of the Act.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 9, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of ARRIS Enterprises LLC of Suwanee, Georgia. Supplements were filed on May 26, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain consumer electronic devices, including televisions, gaming consoles, mobile phones and tablets, and network-enabled DVD and Blu-ray players by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,473,858 (“the '858 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,934,148 (“the '148 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,113,502 (“the '502 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,752,564 (“the '564 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,300,156 (“the '156 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,521,466 (“the '466 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain consumer electronic devices, including televisions, gaming consoles, mobile phones and tablets, and network-enabled DVD and Blu-ray players by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 29, 33-39, 42, and 43 of the '858 patent; claims 1, 2, and 4 of the '148 patent; claims 1-6, 18-21, and 34-37 of the '502 patent; claims 1-6 and 8-22 of the '564 patent; claims 1-6, 9, and 11-31 of the '156 patent; and claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12, and 15-17 of the '466 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: ARRIS Enterprises LLC, 3871 Lakefield Drive, Suwanee, GA 30024.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
June 16, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-461 (Fourth Review) (Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by June 29, 2017.
5. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-564 and 731-TA-1338 and 1340 (Final) (Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Japan and Turkey. The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by June 30, 2017.
6.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this meeting was not possible.
By order of the Commission:
On April 17, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in the lawsuit entitled
This Consent Decree resolves disputes against Westward Seafoods, Inc. with respect to violations of the Clean Air Act at Westward's seafood processing facility in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Coincidental with the entry of the Consent Decree we are also resolving claims for stipulated penalties for violations of a Consent Decree entered into with Westward regarding this facility in 2010 involving the Facility (“2010 Decree”). The same set of facts give rise to the violations of the CAA and the stipulated penalty provisions of the 2010 Decree.
The Consent Decree requires a penalty of $570,000 ($228,000 to the state of Alaska and $342,000 to the United States). Moreover, Westward has to pay $730,000 to resolve the Stipulated Penalty claims. Hence, Westward will pay a total of $1,300,000 in penalties. In addition, the Consent Decree requires that: (1) Westward undertake injunctive relief relating to improved operation and maintenance procedures and employee training focused on the key power generators; (2) Westward be subject to Third Party Verification regarding compliance with the Decree and with Westward's Clean Air Act permit; and (3) Westward implement two mitigation projects.
This publication of this notice holds opens the 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 $36.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits, the cost is $17.00.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Application of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before July 13, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-WHD, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Application of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) information collection. These third-party notifications and recordkeeping requirements help ensure polygraph examinees receive the protections and rights provided by the EPPA. EPPA sections 5 and 7 through 9 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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 (PRA) of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. 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 is properly assessed.
Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data for a study of customer satisfaction with five Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Technical Assistance (TA) Centers. A copy of the proposed Information Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before August 14, 2017.
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Cherise Hunter by email at
*
*
*
*
• 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 request 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.
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved certain collections of information listed in the
Robert Waterman, Compliance Specialist, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour, 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 PRA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to display OMB control numbers and inform respondents of their legal significance after OMB has approved an agency's information collections. In accordance with those requirements, WHD hereby notifies the public that the following information collections have been re-approved by OMB following WHD's submission of an information collection request (ICR) for approval or extension of a prior approval:
• OMB Control No. 1235-0001, Special Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2019.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0002, Disclosures to Workers Under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The expiration date for this information collection is June 30, 2017.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0003, Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, As Amended. The expiration date for this information collection is May 31, 2018.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0005, Application of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. The expiration date for this information collection is October 31, 2017.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0006, Housing Occupancy Certificate—Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. The expiration date for this information collection is September 30, 2017.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0007, Labor Standards for Federal Service Contracts. The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2019.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0008, Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll. The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2018.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0013, Requirements of a Bona Fide Thrift or Savings Plan (29 CFR part 547) and Requirements of a Bona Fide Profit-Sharing Plan or Trust (29 CFR part 549). The expiration date for this information collection is February 28, 2018.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0015, Report of Construction Contractor's Wage Rates. The expiration date for this information collection is June 30, 2017.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0016, Application for a Farm Labor Contractor or Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate of Registration. The expiration date for this information collection is November 30, 2018.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0018, Records to be kept by Employers—Fair Labor Standards Act. The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2019.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0021, Employment Information Form. The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2019.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0023, Requests to Approve Conformed Wage Classifications and Unconventional Fringe Benefit Plans Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The expiration date for this information collection is August 31, 2019.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0024, Work-Study Program of the Child Labor Regulations. The expiration date for this information collection is June 30, 2019.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0025, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, Executive Order 13495. The expiration date for this information collection is January 31, 2018.
• OMB Control No. 1235-0029, Government Contractor Paid Sick Leave. The expiration date for this information collection is December 31, 2019.
The Legal Services Corporation's Finance Committee will meet telephonically on June 21, 2017. The meeting will commence at 2:00 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.
Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
• Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348.
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 14 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry P. Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
The upcoming meetings are:
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held in Conference Room 3063/3064 and Conference Rooms A & B at Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506. Agenda times are approximate.
Thursday, June 29th, 2017 from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and Friday, June 30th, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Office of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202-682-5570.
The meeting on June 29th from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., will be in Conference Room 3063/3064 and will be closed for discussion of National Medal of Arts nominations. The meeting on June 30th, in Conference Rooms A & B from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., will be open to the public on a space available basis. The tentative agenda is as follows: The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. with opening remarks and voting on recommendations for funding and rejection and guidelines, followed by updates from the Chairman. There also will be the following presentations (times are approximate): from 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.—
The Friday, June 30th session also will be webcast. To register to watch the webcasting of this open session of the meeting, go to
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of Accessibility, National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506, 202-682-5733, Voice/T.T.Y. 202-682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for an amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2504, for the Fort St. Vrain (FSV) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located in Platteville, Colorado. The amendment revises the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
Notice of issuance of amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2504 given on June 13, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0051 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jose Cuadrado, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0606; email:
By letter dated September 8, 2016, DOE submitted to the NRC an application to amend the Materials License No. SNM-2504 for the FSV ISFSI, located in Platteville, Colorado (ADAMS Accession No. ML16258A179). Materials License No. SNM-2504 authorizes the licensee to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel from the decommissioned FSV Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed amendment revises the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
In a letter to DOE dated December 9, 2016, NRC notified DOE that the application was acceptable to begin a technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML16347A129). In accordance with § 72.16 of tittle 10 of the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML17151A391) to document its review and evaluation of the amendment request. As further explained in the SER, the NRC has also determined that the license amendment is administrative in nature, and therefore satisfies the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) criteria for a categorical exclusion from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement. Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11), this action is eligible for categorical exclusion, because it is an amendment to a materials licenses which is administrative, organizational, or procedural in nature, or which results in a change in process operations or equipment, provided that (i) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (ii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, (iii) there is no significant construction impact, and (iv) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Consequently, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are not required.
Upon completing its review, the NRC staff determined the request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. The NRC approved and issued Amendment No. 11 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2504, held by DOE for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel and associated radioactive materials at the FSV ISFSI. Amendment No. 11 was effective as of the date of issuance.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), the NRC has determined that Amendment No. 11 does not
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of June 12, 19, 26, July 3, 10, 17, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 26, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 3, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 10, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 17, 2017.
The Briefing on Human Capital and Equal Employment Opportunity scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 has been changed to 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 22, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Generic communications; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing the selected generic communications because their guidance no longer provides useful information, their guidance is superseded by updated guidance, or the information can be more effectively made available to interested stakeholders by other means.
The effective date of the withdrawals is June 13, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0126 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Erika A. Lee, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2065; email:
The NRC performs periodic reviews of generic communications and withdraws them when they no longer provide useful information or are superseded by
Withdrawal of the original generic communication and supplements, if applicable, will not affect the public's ability to obtain this information. The original generic communication and supplements will remain accessible through ADAMS and the NRC's generic communications Web site. The NRC's generic communications Web site will be updated to reflect the generic communications status as withdrawn. The generic communications Web site is accessible at
The following generic communications are withdrawn:
• Generic Letter (GL) 1978-35, “Regional Meetings to Discuss Upgraded Guard Qualifications,” August 25, 1978 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031280394).
The meeting dates of September 27, October 3, October 5, and October 11, 1978, referenced in this GL have passed.
• GL 1978-37, “Revised Meeting Schedule and Locations for Upgraded Guard Qualifications,” September 12, 1978 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031280398).
The meeting dates of September 27, October 3, October 5, and October 13, 1978, referenced in this GL have passed.
• GL 1995-08, Revision 1, “10 CFR 50.54(p) Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval,” April 16, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14055A356).
This GL was issued to withdraw the original GL 1995-08, dated October 31, 1995. Since the original GL has been withdrawn, there is no longer a need for this revision, and it is also withdrawn.
• Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2013-16, “Interactions Between the NRC and NRC Stakeholders During a Lapse of Agency Appropriations,” October 1, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110550923).
This RIS was issued to inform addressees on how to communicate and interact with NRC during the Federal Government shutdown of 2013. Since the guidance only applied to the Federal Government shutdown of 2013, there is no longer a need for this RIS.
• RIS 2013-16, Supplement 1, “Interactions Between the NRC and NRC Stakeholders During a Lapse of Agency Appropriations,” October 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13273A190).
This supplement to RIS 2013-16 was issued to notify addressees that NRC appropriations no longer supported normal operations, and the NRC would be operating at a reduced level. Since the guidance only applied to the Federal Government shutdown of 2013, there is no longer a need for this RIS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for an amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2512, for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho. The amendment revises the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
Notice of issuance of amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2512 given on June 13, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0049 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jose Cuadrado, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0606; email:
By letter dated September 8, 2016, DOE submitted to the NRC an application to amend the Materials License No. SNM-2512 for the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility ISFSI, located on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho (ADAMS Accession No. ML16258A178). Materials License No. SNM-2512 authorizes the licensee to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel elements from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 reactor and various TRIGA reactors; reflector modules and rods from the Shippingport reactor; and associated radioactive materials and components related to the fuel elements' receipt, transfer, and storage. The proposed amendment revises the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
In a letter to DOE dated December 9, 2016, the NRC notified DOE that the application was acceptable to begin a technical review (ADAMS Accession
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML17151A201) to document its review and evaluation of the amendment request. As further explained in the SER, the NRC has also determined that the license amendment is administrative in nature, and therefore satisfies the 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11) criteria for a categorical exclusion from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement. Under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11), this action is eligible for categorical exclusion, because it is an amendment to a materials licenses which is administrative, organizational, or procedural in nature, or which results in a change in process operations or equipment, provided that (i) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, (ii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, (iii) there is no significant construction impact, and (iv) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Consequently, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are not required.
Upon completing its review, the NRC staff determined the request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. The NRC approved and issued Amendment No. 3 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2512, held by DOE for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel and associated radioactive materials at the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility ISFSI. Amendment No. 3 was effective as of the date of issuance.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), the NRC has determined that Amendment No. 3 does not present a genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for an amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2508, for the Three Mile Island 2 (TMI-2) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), located on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho. The amendment revises the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
Notice of issuance of amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2508 given on June 13, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0050 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jose Cuadrado, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0606; email:
By letter dated September 8, 2016, DOE submitted to the NRC an application to amend the Materials License No. SNM-2508 for the TMI-2 ISFSI, located on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho (ADAMS Accession No. ML16258A191). Materials License No. SNM-2508 authorizes the licensee to receive, possess, store, and transfer canisters containing core debris and damaged spent nuclear fuel from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) reactor, in addition to other authorized uses. The proposed amendment revises the licensee delegation of authority in the license, the technical specifications, and the final safety analysis report. These documents currently delegate authority under the license to the Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office. The amendment would replace that reference with the Deputy Manager, Idaho Cleanup Project in each of the documents.
In a letter to DOE dated December 9, 2016, NRC notified DOE that the application was acceptable to begin a technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML16347A192). In accordance with § 72.16 of title 10 of the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML17151A327) to document its review
Upon completing its review, the NRC staff determined the request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. The NRC approved and issued Amendment No. 5 to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2508, held by DOE for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel and associated radioactive materials at the TMI-2 ISFSI. Amendment No. 5 was effective as of the date of issuance.
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), the NRC has determined that Amendment No. 5 does not present a genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and a finding of no significant impact regarding a request from American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO or the licensee). ACO is authorized to possess and use special nuclear material (SNM), source material, and byproduct material at its Lead Cascade Facility (LCF) in Ohio under NRC License SNM-7003, issued in 2004. ACO requested the NRC's approval to ship radioactively contaminated and non-contaminated classified matter and waste from the LCF to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The classified matter and waste would be permanently buried at the NNSS. ACO operated the LCF on DOE's site in Piketon, Ohio, where a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant had previously operated. The LCF was operated as a test facility using centrifuges to enrich uranium, and provided reliability, performance, cost and other data for use in deciding whether to construct and operate a commercial uranium enrichment plant at DOE's Piketon, Ohio, site.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on June 13, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0137 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jean Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0867, email:
By letter dated February 24, 2017 and supplemented on March 10, 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17073A109 and ML17087A285, respectively), the licensee requested NRC approval of ACO's plan to ship off site for disposal radioactively contaminated and non-contaminated classified matter and waste generated at the American Centrifuge LCF. The LCF is located on an approximately 3,700 acre (1,500 hectare) site in Pike County, Ohio, that is owned by the DOE. The DOE leases portions of this site, including the LCF buildings, to the licensee. The LCF classified matter and waste would be sent to the DOE's NNSS for permanent disposal there. The NRC staff has prepared an EA (ML17153A093) as part of its review of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements in part 51 of title 10 of the
The licensee has identified three types of waste to be shipped: Solid radioactive, liquid radioactive, and solid low level mixed waste (LLMW). The licensee states that approximately 315 waste shipments to NNSS will be necessary, and anticipates that these shipments will be completed in calendar year 2018.
The ACO estimates that approximately 180,000 cubic feet (5,097 cubic meters) of Class A solid radioactive waste would need to be shipped to NNSS. This waste would be packaged in Intermodal Freight Transport and B-25 box containers for shipment. The B-25 box containers are nominally 4 x 4 x 6 feet steel containers with a bolted lid. The licensee also plans to ship liquid radioactive waste consisting of oils removed from LCF process equipment during disassembly. Solid LLMW, consisting of various electronic components from the LCF, would be packaged into B-25 box containers for disposal. This solid LLMW would first be further processed at the EnergySolutions facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to substantially reduce surface exposure to leaching media, before being shipped to NNSS for disposal.
ACO also would transfer unclassified, low-level contaminated liquid waste to a facility on DOE's Piketon, Ohio, site for further processing. This unclassified waste would not be shipped to NNSS.
By letter dated March 2, 2016, the licensee notified the NRC of its decision to permanently cease LCF operations (ADAMS Accession No. ML16074A405). In preparation for future decommissioning of the LCF, ACO is packaging its classified matter and waste for transport to the NNSS for permanent burial.
The NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, and has performed its environmental review in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51 and associated staff guidance. As detailed in the EA, the staff in preparing the EA reviewed relevant information submitted by the licensee, consulted with the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (Ohio SHPO), and received input from the Ohio Department of Health.
Packaging and preparation of classified matter and waste for shipping occurs inside the LCF buildings, and no activities involving land disturbance are planned. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that there would be no impacts to the following resources areas: Land use, geology and soils, water resources, ecology, meteorology, climate, air quality, noise, visual and scenic resources, and socioeconomic resources.
The NRC staff evaluated the radiological impacts to workers and the public. The staff found that the projected radiological doses to workers would be below the dose limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1201, “Occupational dose limits to adults,” and that radiological doses to the public would be indistinguishable when compared to background radiation.
The proposed shipments would be made using authorized commercial carriers that would travel primarily on state highways using well-established routes to the final burial site at NNSS. The NRC determined that the relatively small total number of shipments spread over an extended period of time, along with the limited duration of the shipping process, would not significantly affect traffic flow.
The NRC staff also evaluated the cumulative impacts by identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at DOE's Piketon, Ohio, site, and the incremental impacts of ACO's proposed action. The staff determined that the proposed action would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts. The staff also determined that the proposed action would not affect federally-listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitats.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
On May 24, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17111A766), the NRC consulted with Ohio Department of Health regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The state official concurred with the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact (ADAMS Accession No. ML17153A269). The NRC also spoke with the Ohio SHPO and consulted by letter dated April 13, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17102B319). The Ohio SHPO responded by letter dated May 8, 2017, stating that a finding of No Adverse Effect for the proposed action is appropriate (ADAMS Accession No. ML17144A176).
In accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the staff has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed action, and that a finding of no significant impact is appropriate.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of the American Arbitration Association's response to public comments.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation invited the American Arbitration Association to respond to the public comments submitted in response to its request for approval of an Alternative Arbitration Procedure under section 4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and PBGC's default arbitration procedures. On March 23, 2016, PBGC published notice of the American Arbitration Association's request in the
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Bruce Perlin, Assistant Chief Counsel (
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 4221(a)(1) of ERISA requires “any dispute” between an employer and a multiemployer pension plan concerning a withdrawal liability determination to be “resolved through arbitration.”
In lieu of PBGC's default arbitration procedures, under 29 CFR 4221.14, a withdrawal liability arbitration may be conducted in accordance with an alternative arbitration procedure approved by the PBGC in accordance with § 4221.14(c). Under § 4221.14(c), the sponsor of an arbitration procedure may request PBGC approval of its procedures by submitting an application to the PBGC. The application must include: (1) A copy of the procedures for which approval is sought; (2) a description of the history, structure and membership of the organization that sponsors the procedures; and (3) a discussion of the reasons why, in the sponsoring organization's opinion, the procedures satisfy the criteria for approval set forth in this section. Under § 4221.14(d), PBGC shall approve an application if it determines that the proposed procedures will be substantially fair to all parties involved in the arbitration of a withdrawal liability dispute and that the sponsoring organization is neutral and able to carry out its role under the procedures.
On November 20, 2015, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) requested approval of an Alternative Arbitration Procedure under section 4221 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and 29 CFR 4221.14. On March 23, 2016, PBGC published notice of AAA's Request for Approval of Alternative Arbitration Procedure to advise interested persons of the request and solicit their views on it (81 FR 15578). The comments that PBGC received in response to AAA's request are available for viewing at:
PBGC provided AAA with an opportunity to respond to the comments submitted in response to AAA's request, as it deemed appropriate. On March 30, 2017, AAA responded to the comments; the response can be viewed at:
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments to AAA's March 30, 2017 letter.
All comments will be made part of the administrative record.
Issued in Washington, DC.
On April 11, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-010 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider and take action on the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Commission statement.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is publishing this statement concerning a request for an interpretation as to whether a particular agreement is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.
Andrew Bernstein, Senior Special Counsel, Office of Derivatives Policy, Division of Trading and Markets, at (202) 551-5870, or Andrew Schoeffler, Special Counsel, Office of Capital Markets Trends, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3860; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
This statement pertains to a letter that Commission staff received from Breakaway Courier Corporation (“Breakaway”), through its counsel, requesting a joint interpretation from the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) pursuant to Rule 3a68-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as to whether a particular agreement, contract, or transaction (or class thereof) is a swap, security-based swap, or mixed swap.
The Commission and the CFTC jointly adopted Exchange Act Rule 3a68-2 and CEA Rule 1.8 in 2012
Pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of Rule 3a68-2, the Commission is declining to issue a joint interpretation with the CFTC in connection with Breakaway's request.
Finally, to help ensure that requests under Rule 3a68-2 are expeditiously routed to appropriate staff, the Commission encourages market participants to provide the requests to the Office of the Secretary, with copies to the Division of Trading and Markets and the Division of Corporation Finance.
By the Commission.
On April 7, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”), and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC,” each a “Clearing Agency”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), respectively proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-005, SR-FICC-2017-009, and SR-NSCC-2017-006 (collectively, the “Proposed Rule Changes”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Changes. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Changes so that it has sufficient time to consider and take action on the Proposed Rule Changes.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to make a technical amendment to Exchange Rule 406, Long Term Option Contracts.
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 Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 406, Long Term Option Contracts, to make clarifying changes to the Rule, as described below.
Currently, Exchange Rule 406(a) states that the Exchange may list long-term option contracts that expire from twelve (12) to thirty-nine (39) months from the time they are listed. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 406(a) by defining expirations from twelve (12) to thirty-nine (39) months from the time the option is listed as “long-term expiration months.”
Rule 406(a) states that there may be “up to six additional expiration months.” As currently written, the Rule does not specify which expiration months the six months are in addition to, or whether that means that there may be a total of six long-term expiration months (six long-term expiration months in addition to existing non-long-
Finally, in order to further clarify the Rule, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 406(a) to state that there may be up to six (6) long-term expiration months per option class. Thus, there is no limit to the number of option classes for which the Exchange could list options with long-term expiration months; the rule will now clearly state that there may be up to six long-term expiration months per class,
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 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 Act. The proposed rule change will have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather to add additional clarity to, and remedy possible conflicts in, the Exchange's Rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition as the Rules apply equally to all Exchange Members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 6, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), and Fixed Income Clearing
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Changes. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Changes so that it has sufficient time to consider and take action on the Proposed Rule Changes.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 6, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC,” and together with DTC and NSCC, the “Clearing Agencies”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-004, SR-NSCC-2017-005, SR-FICC-2017-008, respectively, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the Proposed Rule Changes. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Changes so that it has sufficient time to consider and take action on the Proposed Rule Changes.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove Chapter 21, entitled “ISE Stock Exchange, LLC Trading Rules” from the ISE Rulebook.
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 this rule change is to remove Chapter 21, entitled “ISE Stock Exchange, LLC Trading Rules” from the ISE Rulebook. The Exchange is not currently operating an equities market on ISE. At this time, the Exchange proposes to remove Chapter 21 rules related to an equities market and reserve that section. The Exchange also proposes to remove any cross-references to Chapter 21 within the ISE Rules.
In 2006, ISE received approval to adopt rules to govern its electronic trading system for equity securities.
ISE Stock Exchange operated until December 23, 2008, at which time, ISE merged ISE Stock Exchange with a wholly-owned subsidiary of Direct Edge Holdings LLC (“Direct Edge”).
At this time, ISE is proposing to remove all rules in Chapter 21 from the ISE Rulebook, along with the references to Chapter 21 in other ISE rules. The Exchange would file a proposed rule change to adopt new rules if it determines to operate an equities market in the future.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Today, ISE operates an options market which will not be impacted by the removal of the Chapter 21 rules and cross-references to Chapter 21. The remainder of the Rulebook concerns the operation of the options product.
The Exchange does not believe that the remove of Chapter 21 and cross-references to Chapter 21 will materially impact members on ISE as such trading has not occurred since late 2008.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would eliminate confusion with respect to ISE's offerings. The Exchange does not believe that this proposal imposes any burden on competition because there are many venues today which offer trading in equities products. The Exchange does not believe that the removal of Chapter 21 and cross-references to Chapter 21 will materially impact members on ISE as such trading has not occurred since December 2008. Also, the options market will not be impacted by the removal of the Chapter 21 rules and cross-references to Chapter 21.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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
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 20549-1090.
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 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) by establishing an Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”).
The Exchange initially filed the proposal on February 3, 2017 (SR-PEARL-2017-09).
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.
Currently, the Exchange charges an ORF in the amount of $0.0010 per contract side. The proposed rule change does not change the amount of the ORF, but instead modifies the rule text to clarify how the ORF is assessed and collected. The per-contract ORF will continue to be assessed by MIAX PEARL to each MIAX PEARL Member for all options transactions, including Mini Options, cleared or ultimately cleared by the Member which are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the “customer” range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF will be collected by OCC on behalf of MIAX PEARL from either (1) a Member that was the ultimate clearing firm for the transaction or (2) a non-Member that was the ultimate clearing firm where a Member was the executing clearing firm for the transaction. The Exchange uses reports from OCC to determine the identity of the executing clearing firm and ultimate clearing firm.
To illustrate how the ORF is assessed and collected, the Exchange provides the following set of examples. If the transaction is executed on the Exchange and the ORF is assessed, if there is no change to the clearing account of the original transaction, then the ORF is collected from the Member that is the executing clearing firm for the transaction. (The Exchange notes that, for purposes of the Fee Schedule, when there is no change to the clearing account of the original transaction, the executing clearing firm is deemed to be the ultimate clearing firm.) If there is a change to the clearing account of the original transaction (
As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information necessary to identify the order entering member for that transaction. There are countless order entering market participants, and each day such participants can and often do drop their connection to one market center and establish themselves as participants on another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as an ORF, on order entering participants on away markets on a given trading day.
Clearing members, however, are distinguished from order entering participants because they remain identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange receives from OCC regardless of the identity of the order entering participant, their location, and the market center on which they execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF from clearing members.
As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's' activities supports applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member enters a transaction or clears a transaction executed on its behalf. The Exchange regularly reviews all such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple exchanges.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to Member compliance with options sales practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor MIAX PEARL regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. Going forward, the Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-Members) trading on the Exchange. The Exchange cannot effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. While much of this activity relates to the execution of orders, the ORF is assessed on and collected from clearing firms. The Exchange, because it lacks access to information on the identity of the entering firm for executions that occur on away markets, believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF on its Members' clearing activity, based on information the Exchange receives from OCC, including for away market activity. Among other reasons, doing so better and more accurately captures activity that occurs away from the Exchange over which the Exchange has a degree of regulatory responsibility. In so doing, the Exchange believes that assessing ORF on Member clearing firms equitably distributes the collection of ORF in a fair and reasonable manner. Also, the Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options audit trail (“COATS”)
In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange works with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related issues. Through its participation in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”),
The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's activity, including the activity of those members on MIAX PEARL.
The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRAs Trading Activity Fee
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the Commission as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the Exchange will notify participants via a Regulatory Circular of any anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their systems are configured to properly account for the ORF.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members in that it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component (
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor, on at least a semi-annual basis the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than or equal to the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the initial level of the fee is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to limit changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable because it will give participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to collect the ORF from non-Members when such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction (that is, when the non-Member is the “ultimate clearing firm” for a transaction in which a Member was assessed the ORF) is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that there is a material distinction between “assessing” the ORF and “collecting” the ORF. The ORF is only assessed to a Member with respect to a particular transaction in which it is either the executing clearing firm or ultimate clearing firm. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to non-Members. Once, however, the ORF is assessed to a Member for a particular transaction, the ORF may be collected from the Member or a non-Member, depending on how the transaction is cleared at OCC. If there was no change to the clearing account of the original transaction, the ORF would be collected from the Member. If there was a change to the clearing account of the original transaction and a non-Member becomes the ultimate clearing firm for that transaction, then the ORF will be collected from that non-Member. The Exchange believes that this collection practice is reasonable and appropriate, and was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The ORF is not intended to have any impact on competition. Rather, it is designed to enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related to its regulatory activities. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. Unilateral action by MIAX PEARL in establishing fees for services provided to its Members and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition. As a new entrant in the already highly competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX PEARL does not have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. MIAX PEARL's proposed ORF, as described herein, are comparable to fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or similar services. The proposal to limit the changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather to provide Members with better notice of any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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 20549-1090.
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-PEARL-2017-26, and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oklahoma dated 06/06/2017.
Effective 06/06/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15155C and for economic injury is 151560.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Oklahoma, Texas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 06/07/2017.
Effective 06/07/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15157 5 and for economic injury is 15158 0.
The Commonwealth which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 03/03-0236 issued to Legg Mason SBIC Mezzanine Fund, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void. United States Small Business Administration
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 311, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on exchanges of defense personnel between the United States and friendly foreign countries pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 311.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 312, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on payments of personnel
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including 22 U.S.C. 2651a and 10 U.S.C. 408(c), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on providing assistance under 10 U.S.C. 408.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 350, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on providing education and training under 10 U.S.C. 350.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority supersedes Delegation of Authority 404 dated November 1, 2015, and shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 342, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on the waiver of participation costs for non-governmental organizations and international organizations in Department of Defense Regional Centers of Security Studies pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 342.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority supersedes Delegation of Authority 409, dated April 13, 2015, and shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 346, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on authorizing the distribution of education and training materials and information technology to certain foreign personnel, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 346.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 331, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with Secretary of Defense support and capacity building for the conduct of certain designated counterterrorism and combined operations pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 331.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 349, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on providing education and training under 10 U.S.C. 349.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 341, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on State Partnership Programs pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 341.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority supersedes Delegation of Authority 411, dated November 28, 2014, and shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 344, I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with the Secretary of Defense on the authorization of the participation of DoD civilian or military personnel in Multinational Centers of Excellence pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 344.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, or by other senior Department officials pursuant to a delegation of authority. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), invites all interested parties to comment on its proposed update and renewal of the collection of information through its “Designation of Exempt Person” (“DoEP”) report, used by banks and other depository institutions to designate eligible customers as exempt from the requirement to report transactions in currency over $10,000. FinCEN is proposing to remove the reference to “Document Control Number,” which is no longer in use, and add a country field to accommodate reporting from U.S. territories in Part II following the current item 11, and Part III following the current item 23. This request for comments is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995.
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only. All comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. Therefore, you should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.
The FinCEN Resource Center at 800-767-2825 or electronically at
The Secretary of the Treasury was granted authority in 1992, with the enactment of 31 U.S.C. 5313, to permit financial institutions to exempt certain persons from the requirement to file currency transaction reports.
The information collected on the DoEP is required to be provided pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5313, as implemented by FinCEN regulations found at 31 CFR 1020.315(a)-(i). The information collected under this requirement is made available to appropriate agencies and organizations as disclosed in FinCEN's Privacy Act System of Records Notice relating to Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) Reports.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Records required to be retained under the BSA must be retained for five years.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information; (f) removal of the reference to “document control number” and the addition of a “country” field in Parts II and III.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, June 28, 2017.
Mr. Michael Deneroff, National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:SRM, Rm. 7559, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Phone: 202-317-6851 (not a toll-free number). Email address:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that a public meeting of the ETAAC will be held on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at The Melrose Georgetown Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC 20037.
The ETAAC provides continuing input into the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. The ETAAC provides an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues such as prevention of identity theft and refund fraud in support of the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of IRS electronic tax administration activities, offer constructive observations about
Due to limited seating and security requirements, please call or email Michael Deneroff to confirm your attendance. Mr. Deneroff can be reached at 202-317-6851 or
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 |