82_FR_115
Page Range | 27611-27769 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 27704 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 27645 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Stay of Certain Requirements | |
82 FR 27730 - Sunshine Act: Notice Of Agency Meeting | |
82 FR 27731 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency Meeting | |
82 FR 27752 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Wisconsin | |
82 FR 27614 - Coast Guard Sector, Marine Inspection Zone, and Captain of the Port Zone Structure; Technical Amendment | |
82 FR 27705 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 27719 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Congressional Earmarks | |
82 FR 27718 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Environmental Review Online System (HEROS) | |
82 FR 27715 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program | |
82 FR 27716 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Program | |
82 FR 27695 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request: Socioeconomics of Maritime Heritage Dive Operators in National Marine Sanctuaries and Proposed Sanctuaries | |
82 FR 27694 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request: Socioeconomics of Maritime Heritage Divers in National Marine Sanctuaries and Proposed Sanctuaries | |
82 FR 27696 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27701 - Notice of Availability for Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment Addressing Implementation of the Real Property Master Plan at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California | |
82 FR 27680 - Availability of FSIS Compliance Guidelines for Small and Very Small Meat and Poultry Establishments Regarding Lethality and Stabilization in Meat and Poultry Products (Previously Referred to as Appendices A and B) | |
82 FR 27621 - Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program | |
82 FR 27756 - The Athens Line, LLC-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Central of Georgia Railroad Company | |
82 FR 27757 - Progressive Rail Incorporated-Continuance in Control Exemption-Piedmont and Northern Railroad LLC | |
82 FR 27755 - Piedmont and Northern Railroad LLC-Change in Operator Exemption-Piedmont Railway, LLC | |
82 FR 27613 - Removal of Burmese Sanctions Regulations | |
82 FR 27679 - Changes to the Inspection Coverage in Official Establishments That Slaughter Fish of the Order Siluriformes | |
82 FR 27640 - Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings | |
82 FR 27625 - Eligibility of the People's Republic of China (PRC) To Export to the United States Poultry Products From Birds Slaughtered in the PRC | |
82 FR 27734 - CION Ares Diversified Credit Fund, et al.; Notice of Application | |
82 FR 27620 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone-July Fireworks | |
82 FR 27705 - Medicare Program; Rechartering, Membership, and Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Meeting on August 1, 2017 | |
82 FR 27708 - Medicare Program; Public Meeting on July 31, 2017 Regarding New and Reconsidered Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Codes for the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2018 | |
82 FR 27692 - Smart Grid Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 27730 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements | |
82 FR 27727 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report | |
82 FR 27728 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Examinations and Testing of Electrical Equipment, Including Examination, Testing, and Maintenance of High Voltage Longwalls | |
82 FR 27707 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27678 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Export Certification: Accreditation of Nongovernment Facilities | |
82 FR 27752 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27738 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27756 - Dover and Rockaway River Railroad, LLC-Operation Exemption-County of Morris, NJ. | |
82 FR 27755 - Kean Burenga-Continuance in Control Exemption-Dover and Rockaway River Railroad, LLC, Belvidere & Delaware River Railway Company, Inc., and Black River & Western Corp. | |
82 FR 27677 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Hass Avocados From Mexico | |
82 FR 27679 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Cape Gooseberry From Colombia Into the United States | |
82 FR 27682 - Compliance Examination Procedures for Rural Business Investment Companies Under the Rural Business Investment Program | |
82 FR 27704 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
82 FR 27721 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals: Issuance of Permits | |
82 FR 27611 - Beef Promotion and Research; Reapportionment | |
82 FR 27697 - Procurement List; Additions | |
82 FR 27698 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions | |
82 FR 27688 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
82 FR 27691 - Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
82 FR 27690 - Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review; Correction | |
82 FR 27702 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 27724 - Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Mask Systems and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation in its Entirety Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of Investigation | |
82 FR 27714 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27720 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals: Issuance of Permits | |
82 FR 27703 - Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 27698 - Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy (USMA) | |
82 FR 27722 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From China; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews | |
82 FR 27762 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Procedures for Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs | |
82 FR 27700 - Meeting of the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board | |
82 FR 27699 - Information on Surplus Land at a Military Installation Designated for Disposal: Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon | |
82 FR 27684 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Customer Satisfaction Research | |
82 FR 27675 - Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, Specialty Crop Committee, and National Genetics Advisory Council | |
82 FR 27685 - Approval of Subzone Status; Scott USA, Inc.; Ogden, Utah | |
82 FR 27755 - Notice of Receipt of Request From Libya Under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property | |
82 FR 27687 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Import, End-User, and Delivery Verification Certificates | |
82 FR 27686 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Competitive Enhancement Needs Assessment Survey Program | |
82 FR 27636 - Special Local Regulation; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA | |
82 FR 27616 - Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, New Martinsville, WV | |
82 FR 27686 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Additional Protocol to the U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement Report Forms | |
82 FR 27687 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Procedures for Acceptance or Rejection of a Rated Order | |
82 FR 27685 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; The Environmental Questionnaire and Checklist (EQC) | |
82 FR 27639 - Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA; Supplemental Notice of Tribal Consultation | |
82 FR 27618 - Safety Zone; Boston Harbor, Boston, MA | |
82 FR 27743 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27676 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27725 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management; Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Department of Labor; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 27711 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27710 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27723 - Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof; Institution of an Advisory Opinion Proceeding | |
82 FR 27684 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Georgia Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 27721 - Boundary Revision at Fort Monroe National Monument | |
82 FR 27743 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC To Implement an Equity Rights Program | |
82 FR 27713 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 27712 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 27713 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 27713 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 27682 - National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council | |
82 FR 27753 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
82 FR 27641 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: Three Month Stay of Certain Requirements | |
82 FR 27762 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to an Executive Order Issued on September 23, 2001, Titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism” | |
82 FR 27622 - Approval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Washoe County Health District | |
82 FR 27724 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Substantive Revision of Previously Approved Collection OJP Solicitation Template | |
82 FR 27703 - Notification of a Public Teleconference and Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) and tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-butanol; tBA) Assessments | |
82 FR 27693 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limits of Acceptable Change Study: Surveys in the Northeast Reserves and Culebra Island, Puerto Rico | |
82 FR 27695 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Data Reports | |
82 FR 27697 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 27741 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.5 of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. To Extend Through December 31, 2017, the Penny Pilot Program in Options Classes in Certain Issues | |
82 FR 27739 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Exchange's Authority To Grant Exemptions From the OATS Requirements | |
82 FR 27748 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Continued Listing Standards for Exchange Traded Products | |
82 FR 27732 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Exchange's Authority To Grant Exemptions From the OATS Requirements | |
82 FR 27736 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Exchange's Authority To Grant Exemptions From the OATS Requirements | |
82 FR 27636 - Request for Information on Potentially Reducing Regulatory Burdens Without Harming Consumers | |
82 FR 27754 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia, aka MMI, aka Indonesian Mujahideen Council, aka Indonesian Mujahidin Council, aka Indonesian Mujahedeen Council, aka Indonesian Islamic Warriors' Council, aka Majilis Mujahidin Indonesia, aka Indonesia (MMI), aka Majelis Mujahidin Council, aka Laskar Mujahidin, aka Laskar Mujahidin Indonesia, aka LMI, aka Laskar Mujahidin Majelis Mujahidin, aka LM3, aka An Nisa, aka Righteous Decision-Makers as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
82 FR 27754 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Marwan Ibrahim Hussayn Tah al-Azawi, aka Murtada Ibrahim Taha Muhammad al-`Isawi, aka Abu Anas, aka Abu Anas al-Shami, aka Al-Samara'i as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
82 FR 27753 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Mohammed Isa Yousif Saqar Al Binali, aka Mohammed Isa al-Binali, aka Mohamed Isa al-Binali, aka Mohammed Al-Binali, aka Mohammad Isa Albinali, aka Abu Isa Al Salmi, aka Abu Issa Al-Selmy, aka Abu Al Silmi, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
82 FR 27753 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Mohammad Shafi Armar, aka Shafi Armar, aka Mohammed Shafi Armar, aka Safi Armar, aka Yusuf al-Hindi, aka Yousuf-Al Hindi, aka Yousouf al-Hindi, aka Farooque, aka Anjan Bhai, aka Chote Maula, aka Gumnam, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
82 FR 27754 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Oussama Ahmad Atar, aka Oussama Atar, aka Usama Attar, aka Usama Atar, aka Abu Ahmad, aka Abou Ahmad, aka Abou Amahad, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
82 FR 27763 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Withdrawal | |
82 FR 27731 - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit One) | |
82 FR 27629 - Airworthiness Directives; Ipeco Holdings Ltd. Pilot and Co-Pilot Seats | |
82 FR 27631 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
82 FR 27634 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turboshaft Engines | |
82 FR 27652 - Amends Rules Related to Satellite Earth Stations Mounted on Vessels, Vehicles and Aircraft | |
82 FR 27766 - Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers | |
82 FR 27768 - Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers | |
82 FR 27760 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
82 FR 27757 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
82 FR 27759 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Justice Programs Office
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule adjusts representation on the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Board), established under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act), to reflect changes in domestic cattle inventories and changes in levels of imported cattle, beef, and beef products that have occurred since the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) last reapportioned the Board in July 2014. These adjustments are required by the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order) and will result in a decrease in Board membership from 100 to 99, effective with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) appointments for terms beginning early in the year 2018.
Effective July 17, 2017.
Mike Dinkel, Agricultural Marketing Specialist; Research and Promotion Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, AMS, USDA; Room 2610-S, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; via telephone at (301) 352-7497; or by email at
This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 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. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). Under the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. 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.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect.
The Act prohibits states or political subdivisions of a state to impose any requirement that is in addition to, or inconsistent with, any requirement of the Act. There are no civil justice implications associated with this final rule.
In the February 2013 publication of “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,” USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that the number of operations in the U.S. with cattle totaled approximately 915,000 in 2012, down from 950,000 in 2009. There are approximately 270 importers who import beef or edible beef products into the United States and 198 importers who import live cattle into the United States. It is estimated that the majority of those operations subject to the Order are considered small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.201]. SBA generally defines small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of $7.5 million or less, and small agricultural producers are generally defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
The final rule imposes no new burden on the industry; it only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in domestic cattle inventory, as well as in cattle and beef imports. The adjustments are required by the Order and will result in a decrease in Board membership from 100 to 99.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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 rule.
The Act established a national beef research and promotion program—administered by the Board—that is financed through industry assessments and subject to oversight by USDA's AMS. This program of promotion and research is designed to strengthen the position of beef and beef products in the marketplace and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for beef and beef products both domestically and internationally. Domestic representation on the Board is based on cattle inventory numbers, while importer representation is based on the conversion of the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products into live animal equivalencies.
Section 1260.141(c) of the Order provides that at least every 3 years and not more than every 2 years, the Board shall review the geographic distribution of cattle inventories throughout the United States and the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products and, if warranted, shall reapportion units and/or modify the number of Board members from units to reflect the geographic distribution of cattle production volume in the United States and the volume of cattle, beef, or beef products imported into the United States.
Section 1260.141(d) of the Order authorizes the Board to recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture modifications to the number of cattle per unit necessary for representation on the Board.
Section 1260.141(e)(1) of the Order provides that each geographic unit or state that includes a total cattle inventory equal to or greater than 500,000 head of cattle shall be entitled to one representative on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(2) provides that states that do not have total cattle inventories equal to or greater than
Representation of states and units affected by this final rule is as follows:
The Board reapportionment will take effect with appointments to fill positions early in the year 2018.
AMS published the notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Imports, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1260 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(a) Beginning with the 2017 Board nominations and the associated appointments effective early in the year 2018, the United States shall be divided into 37 geographical units and 1 unit representing importers, for a total of 38 units. The number of Board members from each unit shall be as follows:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing from the Code of Federal Regulations the Burmese Sanctions Regulations as a result of the termination of the national emergency on which the regulations were based.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202/622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202/622-2410.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On May 20, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13047, “Prohibiting New Investment in Burma” (E.O. 13047), in which the President declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the actions and policies of the Government of Burma, in response to a deepening pattern of severe repression by the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the then-governing regime in Burma. In E.O. 13047, the President also determined and certified that, for purposes of section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), the Government of Burma had committed large-scale repression of the democratic opposition in Burma after September 30, 1996, and E.O. 13047 imposed a prohibition on new investment in
On May 21, 1998, OFAC issued the Burmese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 537 (the “Regulations”), as a final rule to implement E.O. 13047. The Regulations were amended and reissued in their entirety in 2005 to implement E.O. 13310, and again in 2014 to implement E.O. 13448, E.O.13464, E.O. 13619, and E.O. 13651. OFAC also has amended the Regulations on various occasions to add general licenses and make other updates, as well as issued and made available on its Web site several general licenses.
On October 7, 2016, the President issued Executive Order 13742, “Termination of Emergency With Respect to the Actions and Policies of the Government of Burma” (E.O. 13742). In E.O. 13742, the President found that the situation that gave rise to the declaration of a national emergency in E.O. 13047, with respect to the actions and policies of the Government of Burma, had been significantly altered by Burma's substantial advances to promote democracy, including historic elections in November 2015 that resulted in the former opposition party, the National League for Democracy, winning a majority of seats in the national parliament and the formation of a democratically elected, civilian-led government; the release of many political prisoners; and greater enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Accordingly, the President terminated the national emergency declared in E.O. 13047, and revoked that order, E.O. 13310, E.O. 13448, E.O. 13464, E.O. 13619, and E.O. 13651.
As a result, OFAC is removing the Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. Pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) and section 1 of E.O. 13742, termination of the national emergency declared in E.O. 13047, as modified in scope by E.O. 13448 and E.O. 13619, shall not affect any action taken or proceeding pending not fully concluded or determined as of 1:00 p.m. eastern daylight time on October 7, 2016 (the effective date of E.O. 13742), any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to the effective date, or any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to the effective date.
Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date and the provisions of Executive Order 13771 are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, Burma, Credit, Exportation, Foreign Trade, Importation, Imports, Investments, Jadeite, Loans, New investment, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rubies, Securities, Services, Specially Designated Nationals.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 3 U.S.C. 301; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651; Pub. L. 110-286, 122 Stat. 2632; E.O. 13047, 62 FR 28301, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 202; E.O. 13310, 68 FR 44853, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 241; E.O. 13448, 72 FR 60223, 3 CFR, 2007 Comp., p. 304; E.O. 13464, 73 FR 24491, 3 CFR, 2008 Comp., p. 189; E.O. 13619, 77 FR 41243, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 279; E.O. 13651, 78 FR 48793, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 324; and E.O. 13742, 81 FR 70593 (October 12, 2016), OFAC amends 31 CFR chapter V as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule makes non-substantive amendments to Coast Guard regulations in association with a change in the Coast Guard's internal organization. The amendment describes the boundaries of a sector, marine inspection zones, and Captain of the Port zones; and describes the reporting relationship between field units; or reflects a change in the identity of the field unit that is responsible for a particular matter. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.
This rule is effective June 15, 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 LCDR Steve Youde at (985) 380-5318 or at
In June 2015, the Coast Guard decided to make a change to the reporting relationship between several of its units within the Eighth District. Specifically, Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Houma, Louisiana, will report directly to Sector
The purpose of this rulemaking is to align the text of 33 CFR 3.40-15 with a change in the Coast Guard's internal organization.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under both 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (A) and (B), the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements because these changes involve rules of agency organization, and good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM because the changes made are all non-substantive. This rule consists only of organizational amendments. These changes will have no substantive effect on the public; therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 14 U.S.C 93(a)(2), as delegated, to establish, change the location of, maintain, and operate Coast Guard shore establishments. The rule is needed to reflect a change in the Coast Guard's internal organization.
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.
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, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of
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 consists only of organizational amendments. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(b) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 3 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 92 & 93; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. 2(23).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters, surface to bottom, of the Ohio River miles 127.5 to 128.5. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Martinsville, WV during a high-speed boat race on June 17, 2017 and June 18, 2017. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. on June 17, 2017 and June 18, 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 Petty Officer Robert Miller, Marine Safety Unit Huntington, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 304-733-0198, email
On May 11, 2017, the New Martinsville Vintage Regatta notified the Coast Guard that it will be sponsoring a high-speed boat race from 8:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. daily on June 17, 2017 and June 18, 2017 on the Ohio River miles 127.5 to 128.5 in the vicinity of New Martinsville, WV.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure 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 it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by June 17, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
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 authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the high-speed boat race to occur on June 17, 2017 and June 18, 2017, present a safety concern for anyone within the regulated area. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of people and property within the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 8:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. on June 17, 2017 and June 18, 2017. The temporary special local regulation will cover all navigable waters, surface to bottom, from mile 127.5 to 128.5 on the Ohio River in the vicinity of New Martinsville, WV. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before,
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.
E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely navigate through the affected area before and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.
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 the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
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 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 temporary special local regulation lasting from 8:45 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. daily on June 17, 2017 and June 18, 2017. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the area must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks barge positioned in vicinity of the western side of Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a barge based fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on June 16, 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 Mark Cutter, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Boston, telephone 617-223-4000, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure 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 NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The late finalization of event details from the sponsor did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the event is set to begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it is necessary to protect the safety of the public and waterway users.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reason stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. COTP Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with the event on June 16, 2017 will be a safety concern for personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a barge based fireworks display. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of the marine environment and navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on June 16, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within specific geographic locations specified in the regulatory text on the navigable waters of Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts. Vessels not associated with the fireworks display shall maintain a distance of at least 300 yards from the fireworks barge. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of maritime public before, during, and after the event scheduled from 8 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
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.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but that potential impact will likely be minimal for several reasons. First, this safety zone will be in effect for less than three hours. Second, vessels may enter or pass through the safety zone during an enforcement period with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Finally, the Coast Guard will provide notification to the public through Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.
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.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for all of the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review Section, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
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, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
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 three hours that will prohibit entry into a 300 yards zone around the fireworks. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) 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; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's representatives. However, any vessel that is granted permission by the COTP or the COTP's representatives must proceed through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules.
(2) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's representatives. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the safety zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP's representatives.
(3) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via VHF channel 16 or 617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center).
(c)
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce certain safety zones located in federal regulations for recurring marine events. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(16) will be enforced on July 2, 2017, from 9:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(14) will be enforced on July 3, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(18) will be enforced on July 4, 2017 from 9:25 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(19) will be enforced on July 23, 2017 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(3) will be enforced on July 8, 2017 and July 9, 2017 from 9:30 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(1) will be enforced on July 4, 2017 from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) will be enforced on July 3, 2017 from 8:45 p.m. to 9:45 p.m.; The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(17) will be enforced on July 3, 2017 from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Final rule; notification of partial delay of effective dates.
On November 1, 2016, the Department of Education published final regulations entitled Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (the final regulations) in the
As of June 16, 2017, the effective date for the amendments to or additions of: §§ 668.14; 668.41; 668.71; 668.90; 668.93; 668.171; 668.175 (c) and (d) and (f) and (h); Appendix C to Subpart L of Part 668; 674.33; 682.202; 682.211; 682.402(d)(3), (d)(6)(ii)(B)(
Barbara Hoblitzell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6W252, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7583 or by email at:
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.
On November 1, 2016, the Department published the final regulations in the
On May 24, 2017, CAPPS filed its complaint with the Court challenging the final regulations (
Under section 705 of the APA, “[w]hen an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. 705. In light of the pending litigation, and for the following reasons, the Department has concluded that justice requires it to postpone the effectiveness of certain provisions of the final regulations until the judicial challenges to the final regulations are resolved.
First, the postponement will preserve the regulatory status quo while the litigation is pending and the Court decides whether to uphold the final regulations. The plaintiffs have raised serious questions concerning the validity of certain provisions of the final regulations and have identified substantial injuries that could result if the final regulations go into effect before those questions are resolved. Given the legal uncertainty, maintaining the status quo is critical. For instance, if the final regulations are not postponed, institutions participating in the programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), would be required, as of July 1, 2017, to modify their contracts in accordance with the arbitration and class action waiver regulations, which may be contrary to their interests. Postponing the final regulations will avoid the cost that institutions would incur in making these changes while the regulation is subject to judicial review. Additionally, if the final regulations are not postponed, institutions would be subject to financial responsibility trigger provisions that could impose substantial costs. Meanwhile, the postponement of the final regulations will not prevent student borrowers from obtaining relief because the Department will continue to process borrower defense claims under existing regulations that will remain in effect during the postponement.
Second, the United States will suffer no significant harm from postponing the effectiveness of the final regulations while the litigation is pending. As the Department stated in the Net Budget Impacts section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the final regulations, the provisions with the greatest impact on the net budget impact of the final regulations are those related to the discharge of borrowers' loans, especially the changes to borrower defense and closed school discharges. The final regulations were estimated to have a net budget impact in costs over the 2016-2026 loan cohorts of $16.6 billion in the primary estimate scenario, including a cost of $381 million for cohorts 2014-2016 attributable to the regulations providing for a three-year automatic
Separately, the Department is announcing its plan to review and revise the regulations through the negotiated rulemaking process required under section 492 of the HEA. The postponement will allow the Department to consider and conduct a rulemaking process to review and revise the final regulations and ensures regulated parties will not incur costs that could be eliminated under any future regulations the Department promulgates on these matters.
Based upon the foregoing, the Department has determined that it is necessary to postpone the effectiveness of the revisions to or additions of the following provisions of the final regulations:
• § 668.14(b)(30), (31), and (32) Program participation agreement.
• § 668.41(h) and (i) Reporting and disclosure of information.
• § 668.71(c) Scope and special definitions.
• § 668.90(a)(3) Initial and final decisions.
• § 668.93(h), (i), and (j) Limitation.
• § 668.171 General.
• § 668.175(c), (d), (f), and (h) Alternative standards and requirements.
• Part 668 subpart L, Appendix C.
• § 674.33(g)(3) and (g)(8) Repayment.
• § 682.202(b)(1) Permissible charges by lenders to borrowers.
• § 682.211(i)(7) Forbearance.
• § 682.402(d)(3), (d)(6)(ii)(B)(
• § 682.405(b)(4)(ii) Loan rehabilitation agreement.
• § 682.410(b)(4) and (b)(6)(viii) Fiscal, administrative, and enforcement requirements.
• § 685.200(f)(3)(v) and (f)(4)(iii) Borrower eligibility.
• § 685.205(b)(6) Forbearance.
• § 685.206(c) Borrower responsibilities and defenses.
• § 685.212(k) Discharge of a loan obligation.
• § 685.214(c)(2), (f)(4) through (7) Closed school discharge.
• § 685.215(a)(1), (c)(1) through (c)(8), and (d) Discharge for false certification of student eligibility or unauthorized payment.
• § 685.222 Borrower defenses.
• Part 685 subpart B, Appendix A Examples of borrower relief.
• § 685.300(b)(11), (b)(12), and (d) through (i) Agreements between an eligible school and the Secretary for participation in the Direct Loan Program.
• § 685.308(a) Remedial actions.
We do not intend to postpone the effectiveness of the regulatory provisions published in 81 FR 75926 which: (1) Expand the types of documentation that may be used for the granting of a discharge based on the death of the borrower; (2) amend the regulations governing the consolidation of Nursing Student Loans and Nurse Faculty Loans so that they align with the statutory requirements of section 428C(a)(4)(E) of the HEA; (3) address severability; and (4) make technical corrections. As established in 81 FR 75926, §§ 682.211(i)(7) and 682.410(b)(6)(viii) remain designated for early implementation, at the discretion of each lender or guaranty agency.
In sum, in light of the existence and potential consequences of the pending litigation, and given the potentially significant harm that could result if the status quo is altered by the implementation of the final regulations on July 1, 2017, the Department has determined that the public interest and justice require postponing the effectiveness of the sections of the final regulations specified herein until the matters raised in the litigation are resolved.
In order to accomplish a postponement of certain sections of the final regulations under section 705 of the APA, the Department is delaying the effective date of the sections specified in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Administrative practice and procedure; Colleges and universities; Consumer protection; Grant programs—education; Loan programs—education; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Selective Service System; Student aid; Vocational education.
Loan programs—education; Reporting and recordkeeping; Student aid.
Administrative practice and procedure; Colleges and universities; Loan programs—education; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Student aid; Vocational education.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the Clark County Department of Air Quality (CCDAQ) and Washoe County Health District (WCHD) portions of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of particulate matter (PM) from fugitive dust and wood burning. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
These rules are effective on July 17, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0683. All
Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4125,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On March 10, 2017 (82 FR 13278), the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Nevada SIP.
CCDAQ Rule 26 was revised to reference EPA Test Method 9 to determine compliance. WCHD Rules 010.000 and 040.051 were revised to add requirements from another WCHD rule and from national wood heater requirements. We proposed to approve these revised rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these rules into the Nevada SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the WCHD and CCDAQ rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the 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 the 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 15, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the poultry products inspection regulations to list the PRC as eligible to export to the United States poultry products from birds slaughtered in the PRC. The PRC is currently eligible to export processed poultry products to the United States if the products are derived from poultry slaughtered in the United States or in other countries eligible to slaughter and export poultry to the United States. FSIS is proposing this action because the Agency has reviewed the PRC's laws, regulations, and poultry slaughter inspection system as implemented and has determined that the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent to the system that the United States has established under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and its implementing regulations.
Should this rule become final, slaughtered poultry, or parts or other products thereof, processed in certified PRC establishments, would be eligible for export to the United States. Although the PRC may be listed in FSIS's regulations as eligible to export poultry products to the United States, the products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States, including those of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), before any products can enter the United States. All such products would be subject to re-inspection at United States ports-of-entry by FSIS inspectors.
Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2017.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.
The PRC is currently eligible to export processed poultry products to the United States if they are processed in certified establishments in the PRC from poultry slaughtered in federally inspected establishments in the United States or in other certified slaughter establishments in other countries eligible to export poultry to the United States. FSIS is proposing to amend the poultry inspection regulations (9 CFR 381.196(b)) to list the PRC as also eligible to export to the United States poultry products from birds slaughtered in certified PRC establishments to the United States.
Section 17 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 466) prohibits importation into the United States of slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, of any kind unless they are healthful, wholesome, fit for human food, not adulterated, and contain no dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient that renders them unhealthful, unwholesome, adulterated, or unfit for human food. Under the PPIA and the regulations that implement it, poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling accuracy that are equivalent to those of the United States. Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States.
Section 381.196(a) requires a foreign country's poultry inspection system to include standards equivalent to those of the United States and to provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. Specifically, a country's legal authority and regulations must impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering of poultry and processing of poultry products by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and
The country's inspection system must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) competent, qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(i)).
The foreign country's inspection system must ensure that establishments preparing poultry or poultry products for export to the United States comply with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and the regulations promulgated by FSIS under the authority of that statute. The foreign country certifies the appropriate establishments as having met the required standards and advises FSIS of those establishments that are certified or removed from certification. Before FSIS will grant approval to the country to export poultry or poultry products to the United States, FSIS must first determine that reliance can be placed on the certification of establishments by the foreign country (9 CFR 381.196(a)(1)).
As indicated above, a foreign country's inspection system must be evaluated by FSIS before eligibility to export poultry products to the United States can be granted. This evaluation consists of two processes: A document review and an on-site review. The document review is an evaluation of the laws, regulations, and other written materials used by the country to effect its inspection program. FSIS requests that countries provide information about their inspection systems through its self-reporting tool (SRT). The SRT is a standardized questionnaire that FSIS provides to foreign governments to gather information that characterizes foreign inspection systems. Through the SRT, FSIS collects information on practices and procedures in six areas, known as equivalence components: (1) Government Oversight (
The PPIA and implementing regulations require that foreign countries be listed in the CFR as eligible to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS must engage in rulemaking to list a country as eligible. Countries found eligible to export poultry or poultry products to the United States are listed in the poultry inspection regulations at 9 CFR 381.196(b). Once listed, the government of an eligible country must certify to FSIS that establishments that wish to export poultry products to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). Countries must renew certifications of establishments annually (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). To verify that products imported into the United States are not adulterated or misbranded, FSIS reinspects and randomly samples those products at ports-of-entry before they enter U.S. commerce.
In May 2004, the government of the PRC requested approval to export poultry products to the United States. FSIS conducted a document review of the PRC's poultry (slaughter and processing) inspection system to determine whether that system was equivalent to the United States poultry inspection system. FSIS concluded, on the basis of that review, that the PRC's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were equivalent to those of the United States.
Accordingly, FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit of the PRC's poultry inspection system from December 1 to December 17, 2004, to verify that the PRC's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ), which is the PRC's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection, effectively implemented a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. During the 2004 on-site audit, FSIS identified problems with the PRC's sanitation controls, slaughter/processing controls, residue controls, and enforcement controls. For example, FSIS found that the sanitation programs at the establishments visited by the audit team lacked measures to prevent recurring deficiencies that could result in direct product contamination or adulteration, but AQSIQ inspectors did not identify the problems. FSIS also found that the CCA did not have adequate control and supervision over establishments, and official veterinarians did not adequately understand FSIS standards.
From July 27 to August 12, 2005, FSIS conducted a follow-up initial equivalence audit to determine whether the outstanding issues identified during the previous audit had been resolved. FSIS concluded that the PRC had satisfactorily addressed all of the 2004 audit findings for poultry processing. However, the 2005 audit had identified a new systemic deficiency within the risk area of enforcement controls for poultry slaughter. Specifically, FSIS found that ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection procedures and dispositions were performed by establishment-paid veterinarians. On the basis of the 2005 audit, FSIS determined that the PRC's system for processed poultry was equivalent to that of the United States system, but denied the PRC's eligibility to export slaughtered poultry.
In April 2006, FSIS published a final rule in the
In October 2009, Congress lifted the ban on poultry product exports from the PRC on the condition that FSIS conduct on-site reviews of slaughter and processing facilities, laboratories, and other control operations and conduct annual audits and reviews after the PRC is deemed equivalent (see Sec. 743 of Pub. L. 111-80).
In June 2010, a team of FSIS experts traveled to the PRC to collect information related to legislation applicable to their poultry inspection system. FSIS conducted a comprehensive analysis of the PRC's Food Safety Law (FSL) promulgated in 2009 and other information submitted by the PRC to verify that the following equivalence components were addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement: (1) Government Oversight (
From December 1 to 21, 2010, FSIS conducted separate but concurrent on-site audits of the PRC's processed poultry inspection system and the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system to verify whether the CCA was able to effectively implement a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. The auditors concluded that the CCA was able to meet the principal requirements for the equivalence components of Sanitation and Chemical Residue Programs. However, FSIS identified systemic inadequacies in both the PRC's processed poultry inspection system and the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system within the equivalence components for: Government Oversight (
From March 4 to 19, 2013, FSIS conducted follow-up on-site audits to verify whether the CCA maintained effective oversight of the PRC's processed poultry inspection system and the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system and to verify whether the PRC implemented the corrective actions proffered in response to the previous audit's findings. On the basis of the 2013 audit of the processed poultry inspection system, FSIS concluded that the PRC's processed poultry inspection system met all the equivalence components for FSIS equivalence criteria. Therefore, on August 30, 2013, FSIS announced in the Constituent Update (available at:
From May 8 to 28, 2015, FSIS conducted separate but concurrent on-site audits to verify whether the PRC's processed poultry inspection system remains equivalent to the United States' system, and to verify whether the CCA adopted the necessary corrective measures to its poultry slaughter inspection system. FSIS concluded, from the 2015 follow-up audits, that the PRC's processed poultry inspection system remains equivalent to the United States' system. FSIS also concluded that the PRC had satisfactorily addressed all issues of concern that FSIS raised in its 2013 audit of the PRC poultry slaughter inspection system and had met the FSIS equivalence criteria for all six components.
On August 21, 2014, FSIS published a final rule to modernize poultry slaughter inspection (79 FR 49566). The rule implemented new U.S. regulatory requirements including (1) the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS), an optional post-mortem inspection system, and (2) regulatory changes that apply to all poultry slaughter establishments. On August 11, 2016, the PRC sent a letter to FSIS outlining the changes that were made to the PRC's poultry inspection system to achieve equivalency with the revised U.S. regulations. The PRC stated in the letter that it had updated its inspection manuals to require that establishments develop, implement, and maintain written procedures in their HACCP plans, Sanitation SOPs, or other prerequisite programs to ensure that carcasses with visible fecal contamination do not enter the chiller. According to the letter, the manuals also require establishments to develop, implement, and maintain written procedures in their HACCP plans, Sanitation SOPs, or other prerequisite programs to prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens and visible fecal material. The PRC stated in the letter that these written procedures must include sampling and analysis for microbial organisms to monitor process control for enteric pathogens. The PRC stated in the letter that it had adopted the U.S. requirements for NPIS, and that establishments must get approval from their local official regulatory agency before they may use the system. On September 1, 2016, the PRC sent copies of their updated inspection manuals to FSIS. FSIS has reviewed the submitted letter and updated inspection manuals and has determined that the PRC poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent with the new U.S. regulatory requirements in the August 21, 2014 final rule.
In summary, FSIS has completed the document review, on-site audits, and has verified that the PRC made necessary to corrective actions to its poultry slaughter inspection system in response to the FSIS audits. Therefore, FSIS has determined that, as implemented, the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent to the United States poultry
Should this rule become final, the government of the PRC must certify to FSIS those establishments that wish to export slaughtered poultry products to the United States are operating in accordance with requirements equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS will verify whether the establishments certified by the PRC's government meet the United States requirements through annual scheduled audits of the PRC's poultry inspection system.
Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export poultry to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of APHIS's regulations, which also regulate the exportation of poultry products from foreign countries to the United States. For example, APHIS has classified the PRC as a region affected with Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza subtype H5N1 and Exotic Newcastle Disease. Therefore, even if FSIS were to list the PRC as a country eligible to export slaughtered poultry, or parts or products thereof, at this time, the PRC would only be allowed to export cooked poultry products to the United States (see 9 CFR 94.6). Since the PRC's disease status may change during the equivalence process, FSIS will follow-up with APHIS and take into consideration how changes in the animal disease status may impact the country's eligibility to export certain types of poultry products to the United States.
If this proposed rule is adopted, all slaughtered poultry, or parts and products thereof, exported to the United States from the PRC will be subject to re-inspection at the U.S. ports-of-entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. In addition, FSIS will conduct other types of re-inspection activities, such as incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking product samples for laboratory analysis for the detection of drug and chemical residues, pathogens, species, and product composition. Products that pass re-inspection will be stamped with the official United States mark of inspection and allowed to enter United States commerce. If they do not meet United States requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days must be exported to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), depending on the violation. The import re-inspection activities can be found on the FSIS Web site at
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. This proposed rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866 and is not subject to the provisions of E.O 13771.
The costs of this rule would accrue primarily to domestic poultry producers in the form of greater competition from the PRC. In the short run, the cost is likely to be small as the expected volume of trade stimulated by this proposed rule is likely to be small (see Expected Benefits section below.)
The domestic producers would probably start to feel the pressure of competition should the PRC become eligible to export raw and other non-fully-cooked poultry products, and more establishments become certified to export to the United States. Some domestic producers may lose market share, and would have to make the necessary investment to be more efficient and stay competitive. As discussed before, the Agency cannot predict when this could happen. However, because the initial impact is likely to be small, as the expected PRC export volume is low, the Agency expects that the United States' industry would have time to prepare for the potentially larger impact and adjust their business strategies.
FSIS has not estimated the potential impact in the long run. However, the PRC is the second largest poultry producing country in the world, trailing closely behind the United States.
Adoption of this rule will increase trade between the United States and the PRC in poultry products. In the short run, the volume of trade stimulated by this proposed rule is likely to be small because the PRC only intends to certify five slaughter establishments to provide poultry to certified processing establishments to export fully-cooked poultry products to the United States. Data from the PRC showed that these five slaughter establishments will supply poultry to five processing establishments that the PRC will certify as eligible to ship product to the U.S.—three of them intend to export cooked chicken quarter-legs and chicken breasts, one to export cooked duck legs and duck breasts, and one to export roasted boneless duck to the United States. According to the data, the projected volume of export to the United States will be about 324 million pounds per year for the next five years.
The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The expected trade volume will be small, with little or no effect on all U.S. establishments, regardless of size.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) No retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) Administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection systems provide standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS provided the PRC with questionnaires asking for detailed information about the country's inspection practices and procedures to assist that country in organizing its materials. This information collection was approved under OMB control number 0583-0094. The proposed rule contains no other paperwork requirements.
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this proposal and will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at:
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, shall exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination, any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Imported products.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 381 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
We must receive comments on this NPRM by July 31, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Ipeco Holdings Ltd., Aviation Way, Southend on Sea, SS2 6UN, United Kingdom; phone: 44 1702 549371; fax: 44 1702 540782; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Neil Doh, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7757; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0256, dated December 16, 2016 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Occurrences have been reported of pilot/co-pilot unexpected rearward movement during take-off and landing. Investigations determined that horizontal guide block wear, presence of burrs on horizontal centre track, and horizontal track lock system weakness (spring tension too low) were various causes which contributed to the seat not being correctly locked.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of unwanted flight crew seat movement, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Ipeco has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 063-25-08, Revision 00; SB 063-25-09, Revision 00; and SB 063-25-10, Revision 00; all dated May 31, 2016. These SBs provides instructions, differentiated by the part numbers of the affected pilot and co-pilot seats, for the modification and reidentification of these seats. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require modification and reidentification of the affected pilot and co-pilot seats.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects an unknown number of pilot and co-pilot seats installed on 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 31, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Ipeco Holdings Ltd. (Ipeco) pilot and co-pilot crew seats with a part number (P/N) listed in the Planning Information section of Ipeco Service Bulletins (SBs) 063-25-08, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; 063-25-09, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; and 063-25-10, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
(2) These seats are installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2510, Flight Compartment Equipment.
This AD was prompted by reports of unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and landing. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced control of the airplane.
(1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(2) Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, modify and reidentify each affected pilot and co-pilot seat. Use the Accomplishment Instructions of Ipeco SB 063-25-08, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; Ipeco SB 063-25-09, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Ipeco SB 063-25-10, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as appropriate, to do the modification and reidentification.
Do not install any pilot or co-pilot seat identified in paragraph (c) of this AD unless the seat is modified and reidentified as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
The Manager, Boston 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 Neil Doh, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7757; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0256, dated December 16, 2016, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Ipeco SB 063-25-08, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; Ipeco SB 063-25-09, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; and Ipeco SB 063-25-10, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016, can be obtained from Ipeco, using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Ipeco Holdings Ltd., Aviation Way, Southend on Sea, SS2 6UN, United Kingdom; phone: 44 1702 549371; fax: 44 1702 540782; email:
(5) 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-02-12, which applies to all EADS CASA (now Airbus Defense and Space S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. AD 2013-02-12 currently requires a one-time inspection to identify the correct polarity for each pair of electrical connectors on each engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2013-02-12, we have determined it is necessary to add a requirement for modifying the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harness. This proposed AD would continue to require identifying the correct polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and doing a repair if necessary. This proposed AD would also require modifying the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 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 NPRM, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 23, 2013, we issued AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-12”), for all EADS CASA (now Airbus Defense and Space S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. AD 2013-02-12 was prompted by reports of incorrect electrical polarity connections on engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges. AD 2013-02-12 requires a one-time inspection to identify the correct polarity for each pair of electrical connectors on each engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repair if necessary. We issued AD 2013-02-12 to detect and correct incorrect polarity connections, which could prevent the actuation of the discharge cartridge in case of automatic fire detection or manual initiation during a potential engine fire, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to passengers.
Since we issued AD 2013-02-12, a new modification for the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harness has been developed by the manufacturer. Embodiment of this modification introduces a design solution that avoids maintenance errors during connecting and reconnecting of the affected fire extinguisher circuit harness after accomplishment of maintenance tasks or functional tests.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0201, dated October 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Reports have been received of finding wrong electrical polarity connections of engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges on CASA CN-235 aeroplanes. The results of the subsequent investigation showed that the incorrect discharge cartridge assembly was caused by production line errors.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the actuation of the discharge cartridge in case of automatic fire detection or manual initiation in case of engine fire, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, EADS CASA (Airbus Military) developed instructions to identify erroneous wiring polarity installation and EASA issued AD 2012-0045 [which correlates to FAA AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013)] to require a one-time inspection to verify proper electrical polarity of wiring of each engine fire extinguisher discharge cartridge and, depending on findings, corrective action.
Since [EASA] AD 2012-0045 was issued, Airbus Defence and Space (D&S) developed modification of the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses, available for in-service installation through Service Bulletin (SB) SB-235-26-0005, which represents technical solution for an unsafe condition addressed by [EASA] AD 2012-0045 for those aeroplanes. Embodiment of this modification introduces a design solution that avoids maintenance errors during (re)connecting of the affected fire extinguisher circuit harnesses after accomplishment of maintenance tasks or functional tests.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0045, which is superseded and requires identification of the correct polarity after each maintenance action involving (re)connecting of the engine fire extinguisher cartridge electrical connector. This [EASA] AD also requires modification of the affected fire extinguisher circuit harnesses.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0005, dated July 9, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modifying the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses.
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has also issued Airbus Military All Operator Letter (AOL) 235-020, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2013. The service information describes procedures for identifying the correct polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repairing the erroneous wiring polarity if necessary.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2013-02-12, and retained in this proposed AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2013-02-12 is $340 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,280 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be about $50,580 or $4,215 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 31, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-12”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of incorrect electrical polarity connections on engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect polarity connections, which could prevent the actuation of the discharge cartridge in case of automatic fire detection or manual initiation during a potential engine fire, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-02-12, with revised service information. Within 30 days after March 8, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-02-12), do a one-time inspection to identify the correct polarity for each pair of electrical connectors on each engine fire extinguisher cartridge, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, dated March 9, 2012; or Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2013.
As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Before further flight after accomplishing each maintenance task involving disconnection or reconnection of an electrical connector of an engine fire extinguisher cartridge, determine the polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus Military All Operator Letter (AOL) 235-020, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2013.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, erroneous wiring polarity installation is detected, before further flight, repair the erroneous polarity in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EADS CASA's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0005, dated July 9, 2014.
The modification required in paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the actions required in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0201, dated October 11, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) CT7-8A and CT7-9B model turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer that the high-pressure compressor (HPC) impeller installed on these engines may have suffered from material degradation during the manufacturing process. This proposed AD would require removal of the affected HPC impellers. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 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 NPRM, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We learned from the manufacturer that the affected HPC impellers installed on CT7-8A and CT7-9B turboshaft engines may have suffered from material degradation during the manufacturing process. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC impeller, uncontained HPC impeller release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane/helicopter.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) CT7-TP S/B 72-0524, dated June 16, 2016. The SB describes procedures for replacing the affected HPC impellers.
We are proposing 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 proposed AD would require removal of the affected HPC impellers.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1 engine installed on a helicopter of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 31, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CT7-8A and CT7-9B model turboshaft engines with a high-pressure compressor (HPC) impeller, part number 5123T51P02, and serial number, GLHTPH9G, GLHTPP7P, or GLHTPJHN, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer that the HPC impeller installed on these engines may have suffered from material degradation during the manufacturing process. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC impeller. This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the HPC impeller, uncontained HPC impeller release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane/helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For CT7-9B engines, remove the affected HPC impeller from service at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, or prior to accumulating 12,000 cycles since new, whichever is earlier.
(2) For CT7-8A engines, remove the affected HPC impeller from service at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, or prior to accumulating 1,500 engine hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is earlier.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges.
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:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE Service Bulletin CT7-TP S/B 72-0524, dated June 16, 2016, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD.
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; 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.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Request for information.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, or Commission) seeks suggestions for ways the Commission could potentially reduce burdens and costs of its existing rules, regulations, or practices without harming consumers.
Written comments must be submitted by September 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0029 by any of the following methods:
DeWane Ray, Deputy Executive Director, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 301-504-7547; email:
CPSC is an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $1 trillion annually. CPSC uses a variety of approaches to achieve its mission. Among the agency's tools is issuing regulations concerning the safety of consumer products. The Commission is seeking suggestions from the public about ways to lessen burdens and reduce costs of its existing rules, regulations, or practices without increasing the risk of deaths or injuries to consumers. When submitting suggestions with respect to existing rules, regulations or practices, the Commission requests information and data in support of the suggestion, and answers to the questions, as appropriate, listed in Section V.b of the Commission's Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rules, available at:
To submit your ideas, please follow the instructions in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to amend its proposing regarding a temporary special local regulation for certain waters of Commencement Bay for the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships. This special local regulation would prohibit non-participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area and prohibits vessels from transiting at speeds that cause wake within the spectator area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 3, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0334 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, email
On December 8, 2016, Overload Productions notified the Coast Guard that it intends on conducting a high speed water ski race on Commencement Bay. Approximately 40 motor boats and water skiers will be participating in the races and operating at high speeds with limited maneuverability, which poses a significant hazard to race participants and other boaters. In addition the event sponsors anticipate a potential small number of on-water spectators to be present during the races.
The Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 19, 2017 (82 FR 22934), proposing a special local regulation. We are issuing this supplemental proposal to amend the special local regulation to include August 5, 2017 as a race day, increasing the size of the race area, and extending
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and participants in the race as well as spectators and the maritime public. The rulemaking would accomplish this purpose by establishing two regulated areas before, during, and after the scheduled event, one for race participants, and one for spectators and the maritime public. Many factors amplify the potential hazards of the race, including limited maneuverability of the race participants, commercial vessel traffic, and the number of local recreational and fishing vessels. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
This proposed rule would create a temporary special local regulation on certain waters of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, WA for the 2017 World Water Ski Racing Championships. This special local regulation would establish two separate regulated areas, a race area and a spectator area. Within the race area, all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed water ski races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within. Within the spectator area, all vessels are prohibited from anchoring and are required to transit at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course, minimizing vessels wake, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a Designated Representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
As this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the Special Local Regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around race area or through the spectator area which would only impact a small designated area of Commencement Bay for less than nine hours during the days of event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
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
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting for nine hours on each day the event occurs and would prohibit entry into the race area and restrict movement within the spectator area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of the Instruction. Paragraph 34(h) pertains to special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed water ski races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area.
(2) All persons and vessels entering, exiting, or moving within the spectator area must operate at speeds, which will create a minimum wake, and will not exceed seven knots. The maximum speed may be reduced at the discretion of the Patrol Commander.
(3) A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from a Patrol Vessel will serve as a signal to stop. Vessels signaled must stop and comply with the orders of the Patrol Vessel. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(4) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, remain within or transit in excess of wake speed within any of the regulated areas must contact the Captain of the Port Puget Sound by telephone at (206) 217-6002, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or a designated representative.
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of location of tribal consultation.
On June 1, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notification of tribal consultation regarding government to government consultation on a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA.” As stated in that notification, the address of the tribal consultation was to be determined. The tribal consultation will take place in Suquamish, WA. As before, the Coast Guard encourages all interested tribes to R.S.V.P. to the formal consultation to be held on July 13, 2017, and provide information on which treaty rights are impacted and how the Coast Guard should consider these rights in its rulemaking analysis.
A formal government to government consultation is scheduled to be held on July 13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. to provide an opportunity for oral comments. R.S.V.P.s to the consultation must be submitted by June 30, 2017, to the person listed below at
The consultation will take place at the Suquamish Tribe's House of Awakened Culture, 7235 NE Parkway, Suquamish, WA 98392.
You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0916 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions concerning the meeting or the proposed rule, please call or email Mr. Laird Hail, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone 206-217-6051, email
On June 1, 2017, we published a notification of tribal consultation (82 FR 25207) related to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA,” that we published February 10, 2017 (82 FR 10313). In May 2017 (82 FR 22448, May 16, 2017), we reopened the comment period on the NPRM, which is now set to close on August 9, 2017.
In the June 1, 2017 notification, we identified the scheduled date and time of the tribal consultation as July 13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., but we did not provide the address. We are publishing this document to provide you with the location of the tribal consultation.
You may view the NPRM in our online docket, in addition to supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard—for example, environmental checklist, and comments submitted thus far by going to
We encourage all interested tribes to participate in this formal consultation by responding orally at the consultation or in writing. If you bring written comments to the formal consultation, you may submit them to Coast Guard personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments received will be posted without change to
Comments submitted after the meeting must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 9, 2017. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation, contact at Mr. Laird Hail at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
The Coast Guard will hold a formal tribal government to government consultation regarding its proposed rule on Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Suquamish Tribe's House of Awakened Culture, 7235 NE Parkway, Suquamish, WA 98392. We request that tribes intending to participate in this consultation submit the following information to the person in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committees.
We announce our intention to establish two negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The committees will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We also announce two public hearings at which interested parties may comment on the topics suggested by the Department and may suggest additional topics that should be considered for action by the negotiating committees. In addition, we announce that the Department will accept written comments on the topics suggested by the Department and suggestions for additional topics that should be considered for action by the negotiating committees.
The dates, times, and locations of the public hearings are listed under the
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
For information about the public hearings, go to
For information about negotiated rulemaking in general, see
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. We announce our intent to develop proposed title IV regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA.
We intend to select participants for the negotiated rulemaking committees from nominees of the organizations and groups that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select from the nominees individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA.
We intend to convene a committee to develop proposed regulations to revise the gainful employment regulations published by the Department on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64889). We intend to convene a second committee to develop proposed regulations to revise the regulations on borrower defenses to repayment of Federal student loans and other matters, published November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75926), and the authority of guaranty agencies in the Federal Family Education Loan Program to charge collection costs under 34 CFR 682.410(b)(6) to a defaulted borrower who enters into a repayment agreement with the guaranty agency.
After a complete review of the public comments presented at the public hearings and in the written submissions, we will publish a document (or documents) in the
We will hold two public hearings for interested parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda. The public hearings will be held:
• July 10, 2017, at the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Barnard Auditorium, Washington, DC 20202.
• July 12, 2017, at Southern Methodist University, Underwood Law Library-Walsh Classroom, 6550 Hillcrest Ave., Dallas, TX 75275.
The public hearings will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., local time. Further information on the public hearing sites is available at
Individuals who would like to present comments at the public hearings must register by sending an email to
The Department will post transcripts of the hearings to
Speakers may submit written comments at the public hearings. In addition, the Department will accept written comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal, and by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery, through July 12, 2017. (See the
We anticipate that any committees established after the public hearings will begin negotiations in November or December of 2017, with the committees meeting for up to three sessions of three to four days each at roughly five- to eight-week intervals. The committees will meet in the Washington, DC area. The dates and locations of these meetings will be published in a subsequent notice in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to stay for three months certain requirements that are contained within the Final Rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,” published in the
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017. If a hearing is requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received on or before August 9, 2017.
Any updates made to any aspect of the hearing, including whether or not a hearing will be held, will be posted
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0346, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (888) 627-7764; email address:
On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final Rule,” at 81 FR 35824 (“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addresses, among other things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations (“fugitive emissions requirements”) and emissions from pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities (
On August 2, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).
In accordance with section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review, and the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of the rule for up to three months during such reconsideration.
After issuing the April 18, 2017, letter, in a notice published June 5, 2017, the EPA identified objections to two other aspects of the 2016 Rule that meet the criteria for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. These objections relate to (1) the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer (“PE certification requirement”); and (2) the well site pneumatic pump standards. As part of the administrative reconsideration proceeding, the EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer, and the issues associated with these requirements.
In the notice published June 5, 2017, the EPA stayed the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pumps requirements, and the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer for three months pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. That initial stay is effective from June 2, 2017, to August 31, 2017. When we have issued similar stays in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose a longer stay through a rulemaking process. See,
In a separate action published today, the EPA is proposing to stay these requirements for two years. This proposed two-year stay will provide the EPA with sufficient time to propose, take public comment, and issue a final action on the issues concerning the specific requirements on which EPA has granted reconsideration. During the two year proposed stay, the EPA also plans to complete its reconsideration process for all remaining issues raised in these reconsideration petitions regarding fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps, and certification by professional engineer requirements. For the reasons stated below, in this document the EPA is issuing a proposal to stay these requirements for three months. This stay would take effect upon the date of publication of the final rule in the
The two-year proposed stay published today, if finalized as proposed, would likely be determined to be a major rule under the Congressional Review Act and therefore under section 801 of that Act may not take effect until sixty days after publication or after Congress receives the rule report, whichever is later.
Therefore, while the EPA intends take final action on that rulemaking before the initial three-month stay of these requirements expires, there could potentially be a gap in the stay due to the sixty-day delay in the effectiveness of that action. Such a gap would create unnecessary burden and confusion as to what regulatory requirements are in effect and what regulated entities must do during the reconsideration proceeding. Therefore, to avoid such a potential gap, in this document the EPA is proposing a three-month stay, which is not a major rule under the CRA and could become effective upon publication. The EPA intends to publish the final rule on or before the expiration of the initial three-month stay.
Note that we are not taking comment at this time on substantive issues concerning these requirements, or on any of the other provisions subject to the reconsideration. This notice simply proposes to stay the specified requirements for three months. The EPA is seeking comment pertaining to this stay and its duration. Given the importance of not introducing a gap in the stay, the EPA is also requesting comment on whether a four-month stay may be appropriate. A separate
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. The information collection requirements in the final 40 CFR 60, subpart OOOOa have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 2523.01. This action does not result in changes to the approved ICR for subpart OOOO or the submitted ICR for subpart OOOOa, so the information collection estimates of project cost and hour burdens have not been revised.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action proposes a limited stay for certain requirements. This proposed stay will not increase the burden on small entities subject to this rule. The EPA prepared a final RFA analysis for the 2016 Rule, which is available as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Because this action merely proposes to delay action and does not change the requirements of the final rule, this action will not change any impacts of the rule when it is fully implemented. Any impacts on children's health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on children's health in the context of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Because this action merely proposes to delay action and does not change the requirements of the final rule, this action will not change any impacts of the rule when it is fully implemented. Any impacts on minority populations and low-income populations caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on minority populations and low-income populations in the context of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
b. Adding paragraph (f).
The addition reads as follows:
(f) Pneumatic pumps at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
3. Section 60.5397a is stayed from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
4. Section 60.5410a is amended by:
a. Staying paragraphs (e)(2) through (5) from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
b. Adding paragraph (e)(8); and
c. Staying paragraph (j) from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(8) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revision and addition read as follows:
You must meet the applicable requirements of this section for each cover and closed vent system used to comply with the emission standards for your centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
6. Section 60.5415a is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraph (b)(4); and
b. Staying paragraph (h) from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility and each pneumatic pump affected facility, you must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. For each centrifugal compressor affected facility, you also must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(4) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
7. Section 60.5416a is amended by revising the introductory text and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
For each closed vent system or cover at your storage vessel, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating compressor and pneumatic pump affected facilities, you must comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
8. Section 60.5420a is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
b. Staying paragraphs (b)(7), (8), and (12) from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
c. Adding paragraph (b)(13); and
d. Staying paragraphs (c)(15) through (17) from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b)
(13) The collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site (as defined in § 60.5430a), the collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station (as defined in § 60.5430a), and pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site (as defined in § 60.5365a(h)(2)) are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to stay for two years certain requirements that are contained within the Final Rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,” published in the
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017. If a hearing is requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received on or before August 9, 2017.
Any updates made to any aspect of the hearing, including whether or not a hearing will be held, will be posted online at
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (888) 627-7764; email address:
On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final Rule,” at 81 FR 35824 (“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule establishes new source performance standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gas emissions and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addresses, among other things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations (“fugitive emissions requirements”) and emissions from pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities (
On August 2, 2016, a number of interested parties submitted administrative petitions to the EPA seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).
In accordance with section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator shall convene a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review, and the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of the rule for up to three months during such reconsideration.
In a letter dated April 18, 2017, based on the criteria in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), the Administrator convened a proceeding for reconsideration of the following objections relative to the fugitive emissions requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the use of an alternative means of emission limitations (AMEL) for purposes of compliance with the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule and (2) the applicability of the fugitive emissions requirements to low production well sites.
After issuing the April 18, 2017, letter, the EPA identified objections to two other aspects of the 2016 Rule that meet the criteria for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. These objections relate to (1) the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer (“PE certification requirement”); and (2) the well site pneumatic pump standards. As part of the administrative reconsideration proceeding, the EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide the petitioners and the public an opportunity to comment on the fugitive emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer, and the issues associated with these requirements.
On June 5, 2017, the EPA published a notice that it stayed the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pumps requirements, and the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer for three months pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. This stay is effective from June 2, 2017, to August 31, 2017. When we have issued similar stays in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose a longer stay through a rulemaking process. See,
The EPA is proposing to stay the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification of closed vent system by professional engineer in the 2016 Rule until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
As explained above, the EPA has convened a proceeding for reconsideration based on the following two objections to the fugitive emission requirements: (1) The process and criteria for requesting and receiving approval for the use of an AMEL for the fugitive emissions requirements; and (2) the applicability of the fugitive emissions requirements to low production well sites. These issues determine the universe of sources that must implement the fugitive emissions requirements. With respect to the AMEL issue, the EPA recognizes that a number of states have developed programs to control oil and gas emission sources in their own states, and that certain owners or operators may achieve equivalent, or more, emission reduction from their affected source(s) than the required reduction under the 2016 Rule by complying with their state-mandated requirements. 81 FR 35871. During development of the 2016 Rule, the EPA evaluated state fugitive emissions programs in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Additionally, California has recently proposed regulations to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas activities, including proposing fugitive emissions requirements. These seven states represent a significant portion of the oil and gas activities in the U.S. To encourage states' proactive efforts to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry, the EPA included AMEL provisions in the final 2016 Rule, which can be used to request and obtain EPA approval of state programs, or other means, as an alternative for complying with the fugitive emissions requirements.
While the AMEL provisions apply to work practice standards besides the fugitive emissions requirements, these other standards (
These inquiries and concerns suggest that the AMEL provisions included in the 2016 Rule, which were finalized without having been proposed for notice and comment, may not be sufficiently clear to facilitate effective application and approval of AMEL, and therefore fail to serve their intended purpose. The ability to apply for and obtain AMEL for fugitive emissions requirements determines whether well sites and compressor stations, in particular those subject to existing state programs or those which have invested in emerging technology, must now redirect or expend additional resources and efforts to implement the 2016 Rule's fugitive emissions requirements, which may negatively impact or otherwise complicate their compliance with applicable state programs and/or their progress in using emerging technology, an endeavor that may potentially be rendered unnecessary should the sources qualify for AMEL. For the reasons stated above, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the fugitive emissions requirements while it completes a review of the current AMEL process via rulemaking.
The low production well site issue concerns the scope of the sources subject to the well site fugitive emissions requirements. The EPA had proposed to exempt low production well sites from the fugitive emissions requirements, believing the lower production associated with these wells would generally result in lower fugitive emissions. 80 FR 56639. However, in the final rule, the EPA required that these well sites comply with the fugitive emissions requirements, based on information and rationale not presented for public comment during the proposal stage. See 81 FR 35856 (“. . . well site fugitive emissions are not correlated with levels of production, but rather based on the number of pieces of equipment and components”). Available information indicated that “30 percent of natural gas wells are low production wells, and 43 percent of all oil wells are low production wells.” 81 FR 35856. In light of the sizable percentage of well sites that may be impacted by the outcome of this reconsideration, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the well site fugitive emissions requirements while the EPA reassesses whether an exemption is appropriate and, if so, establishes proper criteria for such exemption.
For closed vent systems used to comply with the emission standards for various equipment used in the oil and natural gas sector, the 2016 Rule requires certification by a professional engineer that a closed vent system design and capacity assessment was conducted under his or her direction or supervision and that the assessment and resulting report were conducted pursuant to the requirements of the 2016 Rule. This certification requirement must be met in order comply with the emissions standards for centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage vessels; as such, this requirement impacts a wide range of sources with respect to their ability to show compliance. With the exception of pneumatic pumps, all of the equipment mentioned above is covered by the oil and gas NSPS, subpart OOOO, that was promulgated in 2012, and have had to demonstrate compliance without this certification requirement. While the EPA has observed instances of inadequate design and capacities of the closed vent system resulting in excess emissions from some storage vessels, 80 FR 56649, it is not clear how pervasive this issue is, in particular with respect to all the other equipment mentioned above. Further, as noted by one petitioner, “no costs associated with the certification requirement were considered or provided for review during the proposal process.”
In finalizing the 2016 Rule, the EPA made clear that it viewed the PE certification requirement to be an important aspect of a number of performance standards in the rule. The EPA acknowledges that it had not analyzed the costs associated with the PE certification requirement and evaluated whether the improved environmental performance this requirement may achieve justifies the associated costs and other compliance burden. Because the emission standards for these various equipment (with the exception of the well site pneumatic pump standards as discussed later in this notice) will continue to apply during the proposed stay of this certification requirement, emission reductions from this equipment will continue to be achieved during the stay. For the reasons stated above, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to stay the requirement for closed vent system certification by professional engineer while the EPA evaluates the benefits, as well as the cost and other possible compliance burden, associated with this requirement.
In addition to the closed vent system certification requirement, there are other issues that we are reconsidering that may further complicate a source's ability to comply with the well site pneumatic pump standards. Specifically, the 2016 Rule requires certification by a professional engineer of technical infeasibility in order for a well site pneumatic pump to qualify for an exemption from controlling emissions using an existing control or process. The certification requirement was included in the 2016 Rule without having been previously proposed for notice and comment. Further, the technical infeasibility exemption is not available for a well site that is a “greenfield” site, a caveat and term that was also not proposed for notice and comment and, as evident from several reconsideration petitions, has generated a number of questions and issues.
As explained above, certification of closed vent systems by a professional engineer affects how compliance with various emission standards is to be determined. The technical infeasibility exemption and the associated certification by professional engineer requirement, as well as the “greenfield” issues described above, dictate whether a source must comply with the emission reduction requirement for well site pneumatic pumps. These requirements and their associated issues directly impact the ability of a wide range of
The EPA is proposing to stay the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump standards, and the requirements for certification by professional engineer for 2 years. As described above, these three requirements entail a wide range of technically complex issues. For example, the AMEL provisions involve determining equivalency with the fugitive emissions requirements, and the low production well site exemption requires determining the factors that correlate to fugitive emissions. Further, based on the great interest expressed by stakeholders (including states, industry, and manufacturers of emerging monitoring technology), in particular on the AMEL,
Note that we are not taking comment at this time on substantive issues concerning these requirements, or on any of the other provisions subject to the reconsideration. This notice simply proposes to stay the specified requirements for two years. The EPA is seeking comment pertaining to this stay and its duration. A separate
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and benefits associated with the 2016 Rule, which is available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. As this action affects two of the components that were included in the costs and benefits estimations, the fugitive requirements and the pneumatic pump requirements, as well as only affects three years of compliance activity, 2017 through 2019, the cost estimates provided here focus only on those affected provisions and years. It should be noted that these figures only represent the cost reductions associated with these activities. Although there would be foregone benefits as a result of this proposed delay, a quantitative estimate of this effect is not currently available, and therefore the associated foregone benefits are not presented.
This action delays compliance for fugitive requirements from approximately September 2017 until September 2019. In the 2016 rule, fugitive components accumulated as affected sources from September 2015 until June 2017, when all accumulated and new sources moving forward had to be in compliance. The previously published three-month stay delayed compliance until September 2017. This proposed stay further delays compliance so affected components accumulate from September 2015 through September 2019, after which all accumulated sources and new sources moving forward must be in compliance.
This action also extends the stay for pneumatic pump requirements at well sites that was enacted in the three-month stay. Pneumatic pump affected facilities at well sites were required to be in compliance from November 2016 until June 2017 when EPA issued the three-month stay. Newly affected sources accumulate under the initial three-month stay starting in June 2017 to September 2017. This proposed stay delays compliance until September 2019, after which the accumulated affected sources and newly affected sources moving forward must be in compliance.
Costs and benefits for each year after 2019 remain unaffected. Using the estimated source counts as presented in Table 3-2 of the 2016 RIA, the EPA estimated a baseline for the capital costs, annual operating and maintenance costs and value of product recovery between 2017 and 2019 for the two requirements. This baseline accounts for the initial three-month stay. Then, the EPA estimated these costs under this proposed stay. Total costs for both actions were calculated as capital costs plus annual costs minus revenue from product recovery. These undiscounted costs are presented in Table 1, below. The difference between them, cost savings due to this proposed stay, is presented in Table 2. Table 3 presents the total costs, accounting for the value of product recovery, and their differences discounted to 2017 using both a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate, the present values of these costs, and their equivalent annualized values. The equivalent annualized values are the annualized present values, or the even flow of the present values, over the three years affected by this proposed action. These costs are presented in 2016 dollars.
The total costs presented here reflect the total capital costs estimated for all affected sources in each year, as well as the accumulated annual operating and maintenance costs and associated product recovery values. The difference in estimated costs between the baseline and this proposed action are largely due to the annual operating and maintenance that would be incurred in 2017 and 2018 by affected components under the baseline that are not incurred under the stay. The small cost of this proposal in 2017 is due to the cost of compliance for affected pneumatic pumps at well sites before the three-month stay began. The difference in costs in 2019 is due to the capital costs borne by new sources constructed prior to 2019 whose compliance was delayed until 2019 under this proposal.
As can be seen in Table 2, the cost savings of this proposal in 2017 and 2018, mainly due to forgone annual operating and maintenance costs, are slightly offset by the higher costs in 2019, due to the larger number of sources that would be incurring capital and annual operating and maintenance costs in that year under this proposal. The larger costs savings in the early years leads to net cost savings from this action. As can be seen in Table 3, the estimated total present value of cost savings associated with this proposal are $173 million when using a 3 percent discount rate and $172 million when using a 7 percent discount rate. The equivalent annualized values of the cost savings are $60 million per year when using a 3 percent discount rate and $61 million per year using a 7 percent discount rate.
The estimates presented here are made under a few assumptions, including:
• The EPA is assuming that no affected entities with compliance dates after June 2017 have begun performing compliance activities. If some affected entities have already begun performing compliance activities, there are associated sunk costs and ongoing operating and maintenance costs that should be accounted for in the estimates of costs of this proposal; this would reduce the cost savings associated with this proposal.
• Affected entities may decide not to delay compliance by the full two years because earlier compliance may allow for coordination of regulatory and non-regulatory capital work, thus minimizing operational downtime. Earlier compliance leads to earlier
• However, this may also reduce capital costs for those entities electing to comply earlier under this proposal—for instance, if overtime payments and rush charges can be avoided. This may increase the cost savings associated with the proposal.
• The cost of the PE certification was not taken into account in the 2016 RIA and therefore the costs of this provision under the 2016 rule cannot be compared to the costs under this proposal. The inclusion of the costs of this certification would likely increase the cost savings under this proposal, as costs related to the certifications that would otherwise take place between September 2017 and September 2019 would no longer be incurred.
• The costs presented here assumes pneumatic pumps become affected evenly throughout the year. If more sources become affected in the earlier (later) months than is assumed, the associated sunk costs will be higher (lower) than presented and cost savings associated with this proposal will decrease (increase).
Given data limitations, the cost estimates related to this action have not been adjusted to reflect these analytic considerations. The cost estimates also do not reflect any changes in baseline conditions, with the exception of the initial three-month stay, since the analysis for the 2016 rule was conducted (
Although the potential existence of sunk costs, voluntary early compliance, and changes in baseline assumptions would likely reduce the effects of this proposed action to less than the difference shown in Table 1, the impact in at least one year is still almost certainly greater than $100 million, thus rendering this action economically significant under Executive Order 12866.
The analysis accompanying the 2016 Rule includes estimates of the 2016 Rule's emission reduction benefits. It should be noted that, just as the annual operating and maintenance costs and value of product recovery in 2017 and 2018 are not incurred by affected sources under the proposal, neither are the associated climate and human health benefits. Although there would be foregone benefits as a result of this proposed delay, a quantitative estimate of this effect is not currently available.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0673. The information collection requirements in the final 40 CFR 60, subpart OOOOa have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 2523.01. This action does not result in changes to the approved ICR for subpart OOOO or the submitted ICR for subpart OOOOa, so the information collection estimates of project cost and hour burdens have not been revised.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action proposes a limited stay for certain requirements. This proposed stay will decrease the burden on small entities subject to this rule. The EPA prepared a final RFA analysis for the 2016 Rule, which is available as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. We have therefore concluded that this action will have a net negative regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35893). However, because this action merely proposes to delay the 2016 Rule, this action will not change any impacts of the 2016 Rule after the stay. Any impacts on children's health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited. The agency therefore believes it is more appropriate to consider the impact on children's health in the context of any substantive changes proposed as part of reconsideration.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Because this action merely proposes to delay action and does not change the requirements of the final rule, this action will not change any impacts of the rule when it is fully implemented. Any impacts on minority populations and low-income populations caused by
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(f) Pneumatic pumps at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(8) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revision and addition read as follows:
You must meet the applicable requirements of this section for each cover and closed vent system used to comply with the emission standards for your centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility and each pneumatic pump affected facility, you must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. For each centrifugal compressor affected facility, you also must demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(4) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
For each closed vent system or cover at your storage vessel, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating compressor and pneumatic pump affected facilities, you must comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site are not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b)
(13) The collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site (as defined in § 60.5430a), the collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station (as defined in § 60.5430a), and pneumatic pump affected facilities at a well site (as defined in § 60.5365a(h)(2)) are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section until [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to streamline, consolidate, and harmonize rules governing earth stations in motion (ESIMs) used to provide satellite-based services on ships, airplanes and vehicles communicating with geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO), fixed-satellite service (FSS) satellite systems.
Comments are due on or before July 31, 2017. Reply comments are due on or before August 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 17-95, by any of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Cindy Spiers, 202-418-1593.
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 17-56, adopted May 18, 2016, and released May 19, 2017. The full text of the NPRM is available at
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
•
•
Filings may be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
•
We will treat this proceeding as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on two broad proposals to facilitate the deployment of Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) and reduce the regulatory burdens on ESIMs. First, we propose to reorganize and consolidate the sections in part 25 of the Commission's rules, including technical and operational as well as application rules, for the three types of Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) earth stations that the Commission authorizes to transmit while in motion: Earth Stations on Vessels (ESVs), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs), and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft (ESAAs). We will refer to these earth stations collectively as ESIMs.
Second, we propose new rules to allow the operation of ESIMs in the conventional Ka-band. Specifically, our proposals would apply to ESIMs communicating with geostationary-orbit (GSO) FSS space stations operating in 18.3-18.8 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 28.35-28.6 GHz and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands.
Part 25 of the Commission's rules is organized in the following manner: Subpart A contains general rules relating to scope and definitions; Subpart B contains rules relating to application filing requirements and licensing procedures; Subpart C provides technical standards for licensing earth and space stations; and Subpart D contains rules governing the technical operations of earth and space station operations.
In this NPRM, we propose to amend current definitions and add new definitions that will allow for greater clarity regarding the operation of earth stations in motion with GSO FSS space stations. We seek comment on these proposals.
Section 25.218 contains off-axis e.i.r.p. density envelopes for FSS earth stations transmitting to GSO FSS space stations in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, or extended Ku-band.
Section 25.138(b) states that operation in the conventional Ka-band with off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels exceeding the limits in § 25.138(a) are subject to coordination under § 25.220. Current § 25.218(i) contains a similar coordination provision governing operations in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, and extended Ku-band. To clarify the rule in § 25.138(b), we propose to amend § 25.218(i) so that it lists all of the frequency bands included in the revised § 25.218(a).
Section 25.138(f) states that space station operators may not transmit communications to or from user transceivers in the United States in the conventional Ka-band unless such communications are authorized under an FCC earth station license. We propose to make this a general requirement applicable to space station operators in all frequency bands, to clarify the language of the requirement, and to place this requirement in a new section, § 25.289. We propose that this requirement would be merged with § 25.287(d) that imposes the same condition for mobile transmitters or transceivers operating in some Mobile-Satellite Service frequencies. Section 25.287(d) could then be removed. The new rule would state: “The holder of an FCC blanket earth station license will be responsible for operation of any earth station under that license. Operators of satellite networks and systems must not transmit communications to or from such earth stations in the United States unless such communications are authorized under a service contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket earth station license or under a service contract with another party with authority for such operation delegated by such a blanket licensee.”
We propose applying § 25.218 to all applications for fixed and temporary-fixed FSS earth stations transmitting to geostationary space stations in the conventional or extended C-band or Ku-band, or the conventional Ka-band, and to all applications for ESIMs in the conventional C-, Ku-, or Ka-band, except for applications proposing transmission of analog command signals at a band edge with bandwidths greater than 1 MHz or transmission of any other type of analog signals with bandwidths greater than 200 kHz. We propose modifying § 25.218(a)(1) accordingly.
We propose to bring all the technical, operational and coordination requirements for blanket licensed-ESV, VMES and ESAA earth stations that are linked to GSO FSS space stations—currently arrayed in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227 of our current rules—under one new umbrella rule section applicable to ESIMs generally: Proposed § 25.228. This current array of ESIM rules would then be eliminated entirely, as all the requirements therein would either be subsumed by new § 25.228, or will be consolidated in certain other provisions described below.
In this NPRM, we seek comment on streamlining the core ESIMs rules. In this context, core rules refer to those rules that are currently the same for each type of ESIM and those that we propose to amend in order to create such uniformity. These rules are related to the Commission's GSO FSS two-degree orbital spacing policy, control of operating ESIMs, operational reports, and electromagnetic radiation safety. With regard to revising requirements in order to create additional uniformity, we propose substantive changes to some of the rules to eliminate unnecessary variations across types of ESIMs, eliminate unnecessary duplication of rules across different rule sections, and eliminate rules that are better served by reliance on other sections of the Commission's rules. Specifically, we propose substantive changes to the following areas of our ESIM rules: (1) Antenna pointing accuracy requirements, (2) e.i.r.p. density limits, (3) the self-monitoring (self-diagnostics) requirement, (4) the network control and monitoring center requirement, (5) logging requirements, and (6) the installation requirements related to radiation safety.
In the
Paragraphs (a)(2) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 set forth requirements for ESV, VMES, and ESAA systems that operate with e.i.r.p. spectral density levels above the levels provided in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of those sections. These provisions require such ESIM systems to operate in accordance with the off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels that have been coordinated by the operator of their target satellite(s) with the operators of adjacent satellites. The underlying purpose of these paragraphs can be satisfied by requiring ESIM operators that plan to operate their systems with off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels above the limits currently codified in §§ 25.138 and 25.218 to have their operations coordinated by their target satellite operator(s) pursuant to § 25.220. Specifically, we propose to include a technical and operational requirement in § 25.228(a) that would replace the current provisions in §§ 25.211, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. Paragraphs (a)(2) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 also prescribe automatic cessation or reduction of emissions requirements in the event that an individual ESIM or multiple ESIMs using variable power density exceed the coordinated e.i.r.p. density levels. We proposed moving those requirements to § 25.228, paragraphs (b) and (c), as discussed in paragraph 25
The provisions in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(3)(i) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 limit the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels for ESIM systems that use variable power-density control of individual simultaneously transmitting co-frequency earth stations in a target satellite receiving beam. The
Part 25 of the Commission's rules contain some rules for earth stations in motion that are specific to the particular type,
There are currently two rule sections that address specific requirements for ESV operators. Both of these sections were adopted to codify section 306 of the Communications Act, which provides that while section 301 of the Act (which contains the licensing requirement for radio communications) does not apply to persons transmitting from foreign ships that come within the jurisdiction of the United States, radio communications or signals from such ships are subject to Commission regulations designed to prevent interference.
There are currently no rules in part 25 of the Commission's rules that apply to VMES terminals in more than one frequency band. The VMES rules currently in part 25 only apply to Ku-band VMESs. With the goal of streamlining rules for all ESIM operators, we do not propose any VMES-specific rules that would apply across all frequency bands.
Section 25.227(a)(12) provides that ESAA applicants that comply with the off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section may request Permitted List authority. We propose to eliminate this rule section, because this flexibility is already afforded to ESV, VMES, and ESAA applicants by § 25.115(k)(1).
Section 25.227(a)(14) states that all ESAA terminals operating in U.S. airspace, whether on U.S.-registered civil aircraft or non-U.S.-registered civil aircraft, must be licensed by the Commission. All ESAA terminals on U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating outside of U.S. airspace must be licensed by the Commission, except as provided by section 303(t) of the Communications Act. We propose to keep this requirement and extend it to apply to all Ka-band ESAA terminals operated in U.S. airspace. We also propose moving this requirement into the proposed § 25.228(g)(2).
Section 25.227(a)(15) states that for ESAA systems operating over international waters, ESAA operators will certify that their target space station operators have confirmed that proposed ESAA operations are within coordinated parameters for adjacent satellites up to 6 degrees away on the geostationary arc. We do not propose to bring this requirement into the proposed ESIM rule section. In view of the provisions of § 25.140 and § 25.220, which apply to U.S. satellites and earth stations, and § 25.137, which also applies to foreign-licensed points of communication, we find these requirements are redundant, which redundancy will then be eliminated with our deletion of § 25.227 in its entirety.
We propose to move the requirements of § 25.227(a)(16) to new § 25.228(g)(3), with a minor revision in the first sentence. The first sentence of § 25.227(a)(16) currently provides that “[p]rior to operations within the foreign nation's airspace, the ESAA operator will ascertain whether the relevant administration has operations that could be affected by ESAA terminals, and will determine whether that administration has adopted specific requirements concerning ESAA operations.” Specifically, we propose changing “will” to “must”. We also propose making the remaining sentences currently contained in § 25.227(a)(16) clearly imperative. As with several of the other Ku-band ESAA specific rules, we propose to apply this requirement to Ka-band ESAA operators.
Currently, there are frequency-band specific rules for ESVs, VMESs and ESAAs in the conventional and extended Ku-bands.
Specifically, §§ 25.226(a)(8) and 25.227(a)(8) provide that in the relevant bands,
Similarly, §§ 25.222(a)(8), 25.226(a)(7) and 25.227(a)(7) state that in the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) frequency bands ESVs, VMESs and ESAAs must not claim protection from interference from any authorized terrestrial stations to which frequencies are either already assigned, or may be assigned in the future. These sections are redundant with footnote NG52 to § 2.106 of the Commission's rules.
Additionally, there are two sets of coordination requirements for Ku-band ESIMs, which are contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) of §§ 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227. Paragraphs (c) in these rule sections address the coordination requirements related to the protection of the NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) in the 14.0-14.2 GHz frequency band. Paragraphs (d) address coordination requirements designed to protect the Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) in the 14.47-14.5 GHz frequency band. These rule paragraphs, while covering the same frequency bands and coordination requirements to protect TDRSS and RAS operations, are worded slightly differently in each section. We propose unifying language for the requirements for all ESIMs to be included in § 25.228(j).
Part 25 includes rules that are particular to the type of ESIM in a specific frequency band. For example, C-band ESVs and Ku-band ESAAs have requirements that are unique to the combination of type of earth station and the particular frequency band in which it operates. The Commission has never adopted rules for C-band VMES and ESAA terminals, and we do not propose to do so here.
Several requirements in § 25.221 address issues that are unique to ESVs operating in the C-band. We propose to retain most of these C-band ESV specific requirements. Specifically, we propose to retain paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), (a)(10), (a)(12), and (a)(13) as written and move them to the new § 25.228(h). Table 4 lists these paragraphs and the current sub-paragraphs and the corresponding sub-paragraphs of § 25.228(h) to which we propose to relocate them.
Section 25.221(a)(11) states that ESVs while in motion do not receive protection in the downlink band.
Section 25.227(a)(13) sets out requirements for ESAA providers operating in the international airspace within line-of-sight of the territory of a foreign administration. We propose only minor changes in the language consistent with other ESIMs rules. The requirements would be moved to the proposed § 25.228(i).
We do not propose any specific technical or operational requirements for ESVs, VMESs, or ESAAs operating in the conventional Ka-band. Such ESIMs would be authorized subject to the requirements in § 25.115(n), which includes the requirement to comply with the earth station off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in proposed § 25.218(i), unless the ESIM operations are coordinated under § 25.220. This is similar to the current blanket-licensing provisions for conventional Ka-band earth stations in § 25.138. Conventional Ka-band ESVs would be required to comply with the requirements in proposed § 25.228(e), conventional Ka-band VMESs would be required to comply with the requirement in proposed § 25.228(f), and conventional Ka-band ESAAs would be required to comply with the requirements in proposed § 25.228(g). We seek comment on any additional provisions that we should adopt for the operation of conventional Ka-band ESVs, VMESs, or ESAAs, such as minimum separation distances to protect the fixed and mobile services from ESV emissions, and/or power flux-density limits to protect the fixed and mobile services from ESAA emissions.
We propose to amend an existing footnote to the Table of Allocations to recognize the operation of ESIMs as an application of the FSS with primary status in the conventional Ka-band. We seek comment on our belief that ESIMs operating in the conventional Ka-band in accordance with our proposed rules would not pose more of a risk of interference to, nor require more protection from interference from other radiocommunication systems than other earth stations operating in the frequency band on a primary basis today.
Iridium has expressed concern with respect to ESIM operations in the band 29.25-29.3 GHz.
In addition, to the extent these proposed rule changes may facilitate increased deployment of ESIMs, we invite comment on whether the changes could unreasonably diminish future opportunities to introduce additional services into these bands or adjacent bands on a shared basis. We also seek comment on any possible effects that these proposed rules may have on existing or future services in adjacent frequency bands, such as Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz frequency band.
The earth station license application requirements for ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs, are currently contained in paragraph (b) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227. Application requirements for FSS earth station authorizations at fixed and temporary-fixed locations are in § 25.115. We propose to move the ESIM application requirements into § 25.115 for better integration of the rules. Specifically, the application requirements for a particular frequency band for all types of ESIM platforms
Paragraphs (b)(1) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 state that an ESIM
An applicant under the current ESIM application requirements proposing to meet the 0.2 degree antenna pointing accuracy requirement must show how that will be accomplished.
Further, in the existing ESIM rules, an applicant proposing to operate with a maximum pointing error greater than 0.2 degrees must declare its maximum pointing error and show that at the maximum mispointing, the e.i.r.p. density limits are still met. Again, because we are proposing to eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement, the proposed rules will provide applicants two options to qualify for a license: Either comply with the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits, and provide the information required by §§ 25.115(l)-(n)(1), or coordinate, and provide the information required by §§ 25.115(l)-(n)(2).
Additionally, because we propose to eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement, we propose to eliminate the pointing accuracy certification requirements of §§ 25.221(b)(1)(iii), 25.222(b)(1)(iii), 25.226(b)(1)(iii), and 25.227(b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B). Similarly, we propose to eliminate the maximum mispointing declaration requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(A) and the cessation of transmissions upon mispointing demonstration requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(B) in §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227.
Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 state that an applicant proposing to operate with off-axis e.i.r.p. density in excess of the levels in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(3)(i) of these sections must provide the off-axis e.i.r.p. density showing required by § 25.115(g)(1), and the coordination certifications required by § 25.220(d). In the proposed rules, such an applicant would apply under the provisions in subparagraph (2) of §§ 25.115(l)-(n), which would contain substantially the same requirements for exhibits to its earth station application.
Paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 require detailed showings that each ESAA transmitter in the system will automatically cease or reduce emissions within 100 milliseconds after generating e.i.r.p. density exceeding the applicable limits. In the proposed rules in §§ 25.115(l)-(n)(3)(i), the applicant would have to show how the transmitter will detect exceedance of the off-axis e.i.r.p. density mask and reduce the power of or shut down one or more transmitters within 100 milliseconds of receiving a command to do so from the system's network control and monitoring center, if the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-densities of the transmitter or transmitters exceed the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits.
Section 25.221(b)(3)(v) states that certification that the ESV system will operate in compliance with the power limits in § 25.204(h) is required with an application for a C-band ESV. We propose to eliminate this requirement, which we believe is no longer necessary, because we do not require applicants to certify that they will comply with every part 25 rule, and we typically include a licensing condition stating this requirement in ESV license documents.
We propose to incorporate the requirement to provide the off-axis e.i.r.p. density data currently contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(i) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of proposed §§ 25.115(l)-(n). In addition, we propose to incorporate the requirement currently contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(iii) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 to show that individual ESIM terminal is self-monitoring and capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds if the ESIM transmitter exceeds the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits in sub-paragraphs (3)(i) of §§ 25.115(l)-(n). We also propose to incorporate in those sub-paragraphs the requirement currently contained in subparagraphs (b)(3)(iv) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 to show that one or more transmitters in ESIM systems using variable-power-density control of individual ESIM transmitters are capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds of receiving a command to do so from the system's network control and monitoring center, if the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-densities of the transmitter or transmitters exceed the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits. We invite comment on whether there should be a requirement that the network control and monitoring center be capable of detecting that the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits are being exceeded within a specific time limit, and if so, what that time limit should be.
Paragraphs (b)(5) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 state that any VMES or ESAA applicant filing for a VMES or ESAA terminal or system and planning to use a contention protocol must include in its application a certification that its contention protocol use will be reasonable, in compliance the requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of those sections. This requirement is substantially the same as the requirement in § 25.115(i), which we construe as applying to applications for ESIMs. Therefore, we do not propose duplicating the language from §§ 25.226(b)(5) and 25.227(b)(5) in the ESIM rules we propose here.
Paragraphs (b)(8) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 also state that VMES and ESAA applicants must submit a radio frequency hazard analysis determining via calculation, simulation, or field measurement, whether ESAA terminals, or classes of terminals, will produce power densities that will exceed the Commission's radio frequency exposure criteria. Section 1.1307(b) of the Commission's rules requires applicants to prepare an Environmental Assessment if a transmitter would cause human exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation in excess of the Maximum Permissible Exposure limits in 47 CFR 1.1310 Table 1. This rule also requires earth station applications to contain a statement confirming compliance with those limits. Thus we propose not to retain these provisions in paragraphs (b)(8) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227, which are unnecessary in view of the requirements in § 1.1307(b). Paragraphs (b)(7) of §§ 25.221 and 25.222 and § 25.226(b)(9) state that except for ESV or VMES systems operating pursuant to paragraph
Currently, paragraphs (b)(7) of §§ 25.226 and 25.227 require that any VMES or ESAA applicant must include in its application a certification that it will comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(6) of those sections, and paragraphs (a)(9), (a)(10), and (a)(11) of § 25.227. We invite comment as to whether the certification requirement serves a useful purpose, or whether we should eliminate it, because Commission licensees are required to comply with all applicable Commission rules.
Sections 25.226(b)(8) states that all VMES applicants must demonstrate that their VMES terminals are capable of automatically ceasing transmissions upon the loss of synchronization or within 5 seconds upon loss of reception of the satellite downlink signal, whichever is the shorter timeframe. § 25.271(g) requires that licensees of transmitting earth stations are prohibited from using remote earth stations in their networks that are not designed to stop transmission when synchronization to signals from the target satellite fails. We propose to eliminate the provision in § 25.226(b)(8) as redundant.
We propose to retain the requirements in paragraphs (b)(4) of §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227,
We propose to move the requirements in § 25.130, with minor revisions, into § 25.115(a)(5) through (10). In addition to the minor changes, the last sentence of § 25.130(a) currently states that “applicants that are not required to submit applications on Form 312EZ” must submit the information in subparagraphs (1) through (5) of this paragraph as an attachment to their applications. Because the use of Form 312EZ is not mandatory, but just an option available to applicants, we propose to change the word “required” to “permitted”. We would then reserve § 25.130. Cross-references to this section would be redirected to the appropriate paragraphs in § 25.115.
Currently, § 25.131 covers the application requirements for receive-only earth stations. We propose to move all of these requirements, with minor revisions, into § 25.115(b).
We propose to remove and reserve § 25.115(a)(4), which currently contains instructions regarding electronically filing. We propose to incorporate this language in § 25.115(a)(1) instead.
We note that § 25.115(c)(1) retains language differentiating between domestic and international services. Because that distinction was eliminated in the
Currently, § 25.115(k)(1) states that applicants for Fixed-Satellite Service earth stations that qualify for routine processing in the conventional C-band, the conventional Ku-band, and in portions of the extended Ku-band, may designate the Permitted Space Station List as a point of communication.
Similarly, we propose changes to § 25.115(k)(2) that do not substantively alter the requirements of that section. Specifically, we propose to adopt the following revised language: Notwithstanding paragraph (k)(1) of this section, an earth station that would receive signals in the 17.8-20.2 GHz band may not communicate with a space station on the Permitted Space Station List in that band until the space station operator has completed coordination under footnote US334 to § 2.106 of this chapter.
We propose several additional changes in other sections of part 25 to harmonize the various rule sections involving ESIMs.
Section 25.133(d) contains a cross-reference to § 25.131, the relevant portions of which we propose to move to § 25.115(b). We propose to update this cross-reference.
Section 25.140(a)(3)(iii) contains a cross-reference to § 25.138(a). We propose to update this cross-reference to point to § 25.218(i), which would contain the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits currently contained in § 25.138(a).
We propose revising § 25.202(a)(8) to eliminate the references to the individual ESIM sections, §§ 25.221, 25.222, 25.226 and 25.227, which we propose to eliminate.
Section 25.204 contains limits on the e.i.r.p. and e.i.r.p. density that ESVs, VMESs, and ESAAs may transmit toward the horizon. To improve the organizational coherence of the ESIMs rules, we propose to relocate those requirements to § 25.228. Specifically, we propose to relocate the requirements in § 25.204(h) to § 25.228(h)(7), and to consolidate the requirements in paragraphs (i)-(k) of § 25.204 into § 25.228(j)(2).
As previously noted, § 25.209(c)(1) cross-references §§ 25.130 and 25.131. We propose to update these cross-references to refer to §§ 25.115(b)(2) and (4), where the requirements would be located.
Section 25.209(f) states that an earth station with an antenna not conforming to relevant standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that section will be authorized only if the applicant demonstrates that the antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. In order to reflect the other proposed changes for ESIMs, we propose eliminating the references to the rule sections currently containing the ESIMs rules within that paragraph. We further propose revising the reference to §§ 25.138, 25.221, 25.222, 25.226, and 25.227 to refer instead to § 25.218, and making other clarifying changes to § 25.209(f).
Section 25.258(b) states that operation of ubiquitously deployed GSO FSS earth stations in the 29.25-29.5 GHz frequency band shall conform to the rules contained in § 25.138. Consistent with our proposed relocation of the requirements of § 25.138 to § 25.218(i), we propose to update this cross-reference to point to the latter section.
Footnote NG52 of the Table of Frequency Allocations authorizes ESVs, VMESs, and ESAA in portions of the Ku-band. To be consistent with the terminology used in the proposed revision of footnote NG55, we propose to modify this footnote to refer to ESIMs instead of ESVs, VMESs, and ESAA.
Footnote US133 of the Table of Frequency Allocations, § 2.106, contains cross-references to sub-paragraphs of §§ 25.226 and 25.227, which we propose to eliminate. We propose to update those cross-references to point to the appropriate sub-paragraphs of proposed § 25.228.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this document. We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the comments by the deadlines for comments on the proposed rule provided above in Section V.D. The Commission will send a copy of the proposed rule, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the proposed rule and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a variety of proposals relating to part 25 of the Commission's rules, which governs licensing and operation of space stations and earth stations for the provision of satellite communication services. Adoption of the proposed changes would, among other things, provide additional operational flexibility to applicants for Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft, collectively referred to as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs), simplify requirements for applications for routine licensing of ESIMs, expand the availability of routine licensing of ESIMs to include the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz frequency bands, and consolidate and harmonize the application, technical, and operational rules for ESIMs. The NPRM proposes several changes to part 25 of the rules. Specifically, it proposes to:
(1) Expand the frequency bands for which routine licensing of ESIMs is available to include the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz frequency bands,
(2) Eliminate the antenna pointing accuracy requirement for ESIMs,
(3) Allow ESIM applicants to certify compliance with the antenna gain pattern masks in § 25.209 and the antenna input power density limits in § 25.212 in lieu of providing off-axis e.i.r.p. data,
(4) Consolidate the technical and operational rules for all types of ESIMs, currently spread over four rule sections, into one rule section,
(5) Consolidate the application rules for all types of ESIMs, currently spread over four rule sections, into § 25.115, the general earth station application rule section,
(6) Cross-reference certain rules governing the application, technical, or operating requirements for all GSO FSS earth stations instead of duplicating those provisions in the rules pertaining specifically to ESIMs,
(7) Clarify the requirements for blanket-licensed earth station licensees to be responsible for the operation of all earth stations operating under their licenses,
(8) Update and improve definitions.
The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes that will affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for earth station operators. Most proposed changes, as described below, would decrease the burden for all businesses operators, especially firms that hold licenses to operate earth stations.
The NPRM seeks comment on revisions to simplify information collections in applications for Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft, collectively known as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs). For example, the NPRM proposes eliminating the antenna pointing accuracy requirement and associated demonstrations that are currently required in all ESIM applications. The NPRM also seeks comment on extending eligibility for routine processing to applications for ESIMs operating in the 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.25-30 GHz frequency bands. In addition, the NPRM proposes to consolidate the technical and operational rules for ESIMs into a single rule section to reduce repetition of provisions across multiple rule sections, and to consolidate the application rules for ESIMs into the general earth station application rule section of part 25.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties on revisions to simplify information collections in applications for ESIMs. In this NPRM, the Commission considers rule revisions to reflect changes and advances in the satellite industry. The NPRM proposes to eliminate unnecessary technical and information filing requirements, and reorganize and simplify existing requirements. All of these proposals could lessen the burden of compliance on small entities with more limited resources than larger entities.
The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the document. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the proposed rule, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
The proposed changes for earth station licensing would clarify requirements for routine licensing and expand applicability of routine licensing standards. Each of these changes could lessen the burden in the licensing process. Specifically, this NPRM proposes revisions to provide alternatives for filing requirements, reduce filing requirements and clarify ESIM license application requirements in such a way that applicant burden should be reduced. Thus, the Commission anticipates that the proposed revisions would ultimately lead to benefits for small earth station operators in the long-term.
None.
Radio, Table of frequency allocations.
Administrative practice and procedure, Earth stations, Satellites.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
5.484B Resolution 155 (WRC-15) shall apply. (WRC-15)
5.527A The operation of earth stations in motion communicating with the FSS is subject to Resolution 156 (WRC-15). (WRC-15)
US133 In the bands 14-14.2 GHz and 14.47-14.5 GHz, the following provisions shall apply to the operations of Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft (ESAA):
(a) In the band 14-14.2 GHz, ESAA licensees proposing to operate within radio line-of-sight of the coordinates specified in 47 CFR 25.228(j)(1) are subject to prior coordination with NTIA in order to minimize harmful interference to the ground terminals of NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS).
(b) In the band 14.47-14.5 GHz, operations within radio line-of-sight of the radio astronomy stations specified in 47 CFR 25.228(j)(3) are subject to coordination with the National Science Foundation in accordance with 47 CFR 25.228(j)(3).
NG52 Except as otherwise provided for herein, use of the bands 10.7-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) by geostationary satellites in the fixed-satellite service (FSS) shall be limited to international systems,
NG55 In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space), 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space), Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs), as regulated under 47 CFR part 25, are applications of the fixed-satellite service and may be authorized to communicate with geostationary satellites in the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis.
NG180 In the band 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) earth stations on vessels (ESVs) may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the fixed-satellite service and, while docked, may be coordinated for up to 180 days, renewable. ESVs in motion have the same status as other operations in the FSS, but must operate on a secondary basis with respect to non-Federal stations in the fixed service.
(1) Multiple earth stations in the FSS or MSS, or for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, that may be operated anywhere within a geographic area specified in the license; or
(2) For multiple space stations in non-geostationary-orbit.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)(1)
(2) * * *
(iii) The application meets all relevant criteria in §§ 25.211 or 25.212 or includes information filed pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section indicating that off-axis e.i.r.p. density from the proposed earth stations will not exceed relevant levels specified in § 25.218; and
(5) Applicants that are not permitted to submit applications under paragraph (a)(2) of this section on Form 312EZ,
(i) A detailed description of the service to be provided, including frequency bands and satellites to be used. The applicant must identify either the specific satellite(s) with which it plans to operate, or the eastern and western boundaries of the arc it plans to coordinate.
(ii) The diameter or equivalent diameter of the antenna.
(iii) Proposed power and power density levels.
(iv) Identification of any random access technique, if applicable.
(v) Identification of a specific rule or rules for which a waiver is requested.
(6) A frequency coordination analysis in accordance with § 25.203 (b) must be provided for earth stations transmitting in the frequency bands shared with equal rights between terrestrial and space services, except applications for user transceiver units associated with the NVNG MSS, which must instead provide the information required by § 25.135, and applications for 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS user transceivers, which must demonstrate that the transceivers will operate in compliance with relevant requirements in § 25.213. Also, applications for transmitting earth stations must include any notification or demonstration required by any other relevant provision in § 25.203.
(7) In those cases where an applicant is filing a number of essentially similar applications, showings of a general nature applicable to all of the proposed stations may be submitted in the initial application and incorporated by reference in subsequent applications.
(8) Transmissions of signals or programming to non-U.S. licensed satellites, and to and/or from foreign points by means of U.S.-licensed fixed satellites may be subject to restrictions as a result of international agreements or treaties. The Commission will maintain public information on the status of any such agreements.
(9) Applicants seeking to operate in a shared government/non-government band must provide the half-power beam width of their proposed earth station antenna, as an attachment to their applications.
(10) Parties may apply, either in an initial application or an application for modification of license, for operating authority for multiple transmitting FSS earth stations that are not eligible for blanket or network licensing under another section of this part in the following circumstances:
(i) The antennas would transmit in frequency bands shared with terrestrial services on a co-primary basis and the antennas would be sited within an area bounded by 1 second of latitude and 1 second of longitude.
(ii) The antennas would transmit in frequency bands allocated to FSS on a primary basis and there is no co-primary allocation for terrestrial services, and the antennas would be sited within an area bounded by 10 seconds of latitude and 10 seconds of longitude.
This paragraph does not apply to applications for blanket-licensed earth station networks filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section or § 25.218; applications for conventional Ka-band hub stations filed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section; applications for NGSO FSS gateway earth stations filed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section; applications for ESIMs filed pursuant to paragraphs (l) through (n) of this section; or applications for 29 GHz NGSO MSS feeder-link stations in a complex as defined in § 25.257.
(b)
(1) Receive-only earth stations in the FSS that operate with U.S.-licensed space stations, or with non-U.S.-licensed space stations that have been duly approved for U.S. market access, may be registered with the Commission in order to protect them from interference from terrestrial microwave stations in bands shared co-equally with the Fixed Service in accordance with the procedures of §§ 25.203 and 25.251, subject to the stricture in § 25.209(c).
(2) Licensing or registration of receive-only earth stations with the Commission confers no authority to receive and use signals or programming received from satellites.
(3) Applications for registration must be accompanied by the coordination exhibit required by § 25.203 and any other required exhibits.
(4) Complete applications for registration will be placed on public notice for 30 days and automatically granted if no objection is submitted to the Commission and served on the applicant. Additional pleadings are authorized in accordance with § 1.45 of this chapter.
(5) The registration of a receive-only earth station results in the listing of an authorized frequency band at the location specified in the registration. Interference protection levels are those agreed to during coordination.
(6) Reception of signals or programming from non-U.S. satellites may be subject to restrictions as a result of international agreements or treaties. The Commission will maintain public information on the status of any such agreements.
(7) Registration term: Registrations for receive-only earth stations governed by this section will be issued for a period of 15 years from the date on which the application was filed. Applications for renewals of registrations must be submitted on FCC Form 312R (Application for Renewal of Radio Station License in Specified Services) no earlier than 90 days and no later than 30 days before the expiration date of the registration.
(8) Applications for modification of license or registration of receive-only earth stations must be made in conformance with §§ 25.117 and 25.118. In addition, registrants are required to notify the Commission when a receive-only earth station is no longer operational or when it has not been used to provide any service during any 6-month period.
(9)(i) Except as set forth in paragraph (9)(ii) of this section, receive-only earth stations operating with non-U.S. licensed space stations must file an FCC Form 312 requesting a license or modification to operate such station.
(ii) Operators of receive-only earth stations need not apply for a license to receive transmissions from non-U.S.-licensed space stations that have been duly approved for U.S. market access, provided the space station operator and earth station operator comply with all applicable rules in this chapter and with applicable conditions in the Permitted Space Station List or market-access grant.
(c) * * *
(1)
(i) * * *
(A) No more than three geostationary satellites to be accessed;
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The application includes information filed pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section indicating that off-axis e.i.r.p. density from the proposed earth stations will not exceed relevant routine levels specified in § 25.218(i).
(ii) Applications to license networks of earth stations operating in the 28.35-28.6 GHz and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands under blanket operating authority that do not meet the requirements of §§ 25.212(e) or 25.218(i) must comply with the requirements in § 25.220 and must be filed on FCC Form 312 with a Schedule B for each large (5 meters or larger) hub station antenna and each representative type of small antenna (less than 5 meters) operating within the network.
(e) License applications for earth station operation in any portion of the 18.3-20.2 GHz and 28.35-30.0 GHz bands not filed on FCC Form 312EZ pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be filed on FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, and must include any information required by paragraphs (a)(5)-(10), (g), or (j) of this section. An applicant may request authority for operation of GSO FSS earth stations in the conventional Ka-band, or for operation of NGSO FSS earth stations in the 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 28.6-29.1 (Earth-to-space) bands, without specifying the location of user terminals but must specify the geographic area(s) in which they will operate and the location of hub and/or gateway stations.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) The relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. density envelopes in § 25.218 or § 25.223 must be superimposed on plots submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(k)(1) Applicants for FSS earth stations that qualify for routine processing in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, the conventional Ka-band, or the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, including ESV applications filed pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) or (n)(1) of this section, VMES applications filed pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) or (n)(1) of this section, and ESAA applications filed pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) or (n)(1) of this section, may designate the Permitted Space Station List as a point of communication. Once such an application is granted, the earth station operator may communicate with any space station on the Permitted Space Station List, provided that the operation is consistent with the technical parameters and conditions in the earth station license and any limitations placed on the space station authorization or noted in the Permitted Space Station List.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (k)(1) of this section, an earth station that would receive signals in the 17.8-20.2 GHz band may not communicate with a space station on the Permitted Space Station List in that band until the space station operator has completed coordination under Footnote US334 to § 2.106 of this chapter.
(l) The requirements of this paragraph apply to applications for ESV operation in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) band with GSO satellites in the Fixed-Satellite Service, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (i) of this section:
(1) Applications where any necessary frequency coordination has been satisfactorily completed, and the proposed earth station transmissions comport with the applicable provisions in § 25.212(d) or the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218(d) will be routinely processed. Such applications must include the relevant information specified by paragraph (g) of this section. Applicants for ESIMs operating in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam must also provide the certification required by section 25.212(g) or 25.218(d)(4), whichever is applicable.
(2) Applications where the proposed earth station transmissions do not comport with the applicable provisions in § 25.212(d) or the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218(d) must include the information specified by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and are subject to the requirements of § 25.220.
(3) Applications must include the following information:
(i) A demonstration that the ESV system is capable of detecting and automatically ceasing emissions within 100 milliseconds when the transmitter exceeds the off-axis EIRP spectral-density limits specified in § 25.218(d), or the limits provided to the target satellite operator for operation under § 25.220. ESV applicants must provide a detailed showing that an individual ESV terminal is self-monitoring and capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds if the ESV transmitter exceeds the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits. Variable-power ESV applicants must provide a detailed showing that one or more transmitters are capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds of receiving a command to do so from the system's network control and monitoring center, if the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-densities of the transmitter or transmitters exceed the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits.
(ii) An exhibit describing the geographic area(s) in which the ESVs will operate.
(iii) The point of contact information referred to in § 25.228(e)(2).
(iv) Applicants for ESVs that will exceed the guidelines in § 1.1310 of this chapter for radio frequency radiation exposure must provide, with their environmental assessment, a plan for mitigation of radiation exposure to the extent required to meet those guidelines.
(m) The requirements of this paragraph apply to applications for ESIM operation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) band with GSO satellites in the Fixed-Satellite Service, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), and (i) of this section:
(1) Applications where any necessary frequency coordination has been satisfactorily completed, and the proposed earth station transmissions comport with the applicable provisions in § 25.212(d) or the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218(f) will be routinely processed. Such applications must include the relevant information specified by paragraph (g) of this section. Applicants for ESIMs operating in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam must also provide the certification required by section 25.212(g) or section 25.218(f)(4), whichever is applicable.
(2) Applications where the proposed earth station transmissions do not comport with the applicable provisions in § 25.212(d) or the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218(f) must include the information specified by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and are subject to the requirements of § 25.220.
(3) Applications must include the following information:
(i) A demonstration that the ESIM system is capable of detecting and automatically ceasing emissions within 100 milliseconds when the transmitter
(ii) An exhibit describing the geographic area(s) in which the ESIMs will operate.
(iii) The point of contact information referred to in § 25.228(e)(2), (f), or (g)(1) as appropriate.
(iv) Applicants for ESIMs that will exceed the guidelines in § 1.1310 of this chapter for radio frequency radiation exposure must provide, with their environmental assessment, a plan for mitigation of radiation exposure to the extent required to meet those guidelines.
(n) The requirements of this paragraph apply to applications for ESIM operation in the 28.35-28.6 GHz or 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) band with GSO satellites in the Fixed-Satellite Service, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), and (i) of this section:
(1) Applications where any necessary frequency coordination has been satisfactorily completed, and the proposed earth station transmissions comport with the applicable provisions in § 25.212(e) or the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218(i) will be routinely processed. Such applications must include the relevant information specified by paragraph (g) of this section. Applicants for ESIMs operating in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam must also provide the certification required by section 25.212(g) or section 25.218(i)(5), whichever is applicable.
(2) Applications where the proposed earth station transmissions do not comport with the applicable provisions in § 25.212(e) or the applicable off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218(i) must include the information specified by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and are subject to the requirements of § 25.220.
(3) Applications must include the following information:
(i) A demonstration that the ESIM system is capable of detecting and automatically ceasing emissions within 100 milliseconds when the transmitter exceeds the off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits specified in § 25.218(i), or the limits provided to the target satellite operator for operation under § 25.220. ESIM applicants must provide a detailed showing that an individual ESIM terminal is self-monitoring and capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds if the ESIM transmitter exceeds the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits. Variable-power ESIM applicants must provide a detailed showing that one or more transmitters are capable of automatically ceasing or reducing emissions within 100 milliseconds of receiving a command to do so from the system's network control and monitoring center, if the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-densities of the transmitter or transmitters exceed the relevant off-axis e.i.r.p. spectral-density limits.
(ii) An exhibit describing the geographic area(s) in which the ESIM s will operate.
(iii) The point of contact information referred to in § 25.228(e)(2), (f), or (g)(1) as appropriate.
(iv) Applicants for ESIMs that will exceed the guidelines in § 1.1310 of this chapter for radio frequency radiation exposure must provide, with their environmental assessment, a plan for mitigation of radiation exposure to the extent required to meet those guidelines.
(d) For each new or modified transmitting antenna over 3 meters in diameter, the following on-site verification measurements must be completed at one frequency on an available transponder in each frequency band of interest and submitted to the Commission.
(d) Each receiving earth station licensed or registered pursuant to § 25.115(b) must be constructed and placed into service within 6 months after coordination has been completed. Each licensee or registrant must file with the Commission a certification that the facility is completed and operating as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, with the exception of certification of antenna patterns.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional Ka-band, a certification that the proposed space station will not generate power flux-density at the Earth's surface in excess of −118 dBW/m
(d) * * *
(1) The letter notification must include the downlink off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels or power flux density levels and/or uplink off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels, specified per frequency range and space station antenna beam, that exceed the relevant routine limits set forth in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section and § 25.218.
(a) * * *
(8) The following frequencies are available for use by ESVs:
(10) The following frequencies are available for use by Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs):
(11) The following frequencies are available for use by Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft (ESAAs):
The revision reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(3) FSS earth stations transmitting to geostationary space stations in the 28.35-28.6 GHz and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands may employ uplink adaptive power control or other methods of fade compensation. For stations employing uplink power control, the values in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(4) of § 25.218 may be exceeded by up to 20 dB under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation. The amount of such increase in excess of the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions must not exceed 1.5 dB or 15 percent of the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation in dB, whichever is larger, with a confidence level of 90 percent except over transient periods accounting for no more than 0.5 percent of the time during which the excess is no more than 4.0 dB.
(c)(1) An earth station licensed for operation with a GSO FSS space station or registered for reception of transmissions from such a space station pursuant to §§ 25.115(b)(1) and (3) is not entitled to protection from interference from authorized operation of other stations that would not cause harmful interference to that earth station if it were using an antenna with receive-band gain patterns conforming to the levels specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(f) A GSO FSS earth station with an antenna that does not conform to the applicable standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be authorized only if the applicant demonstrates that the antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. This demonstration must show that the transmissions of the earth station comport with the requirements in § 25.218 or § 25.223, or the applicant must demonstrate that the operations of the earth station have been coordinated under § 25.220.
(c)(1) An earth station, other than an ESIM, may be routinely licensed for analog transmissions in the conventional Ku-band or the extended Ku-band with bandwidths up to 200 kHz (or up to 1 MHz for command carriers at the band edge) if the input power spectral density into the antenna will not exceed −8 dBW/4 kHz, and the application includes certification pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) of conformance with the antenna gain performance requirements in § 25.209(a) and (b).
(2) An earth station may be routinely licensed for digital transmission, including digital video transmission, in the conventional Ku-band, or, except for an ESIM, in the extended Ku-band, if input power spectral density into the antenna will not exceed −14 dBW/4 kHz and the application includes certification pursuant to § 25.132(a)(1) of conformance with the antenna gain performance requirements in § 25.209(a) and (b).
(d) An individual earth station may be routinely licensed for digital transmission in the conventional C-band or, except for an ESIM, in the extended C-band, if the applicant certifies conformance with relevant antenna performance standards in § 25.209(a) and (b), and power density into the antenna will not exceed −2.7 dBW/4 kHz. An individual earth station, other than an ESIM, may be routinely licensed for analog transmission with carrier bandwidths up to 200 kHz (or up to 1 MHz for command carriers at the band edge) in the conventional C-band or the extended C-band, if the applicant certifies conformance with relevant antenna performance standards in § 25.209(a) and (b), and power density into the antenna will not exceed +0.5 dBW/4 kHz.
(g) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam may be routinely processed if the applicant certifies that the aggregate off-axis EIRP density from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP density limits permissible for a single earth station, as specified in § 25.218.
(h) Applications for authority for fixed earth station operation in the conventional C-band, the extended C-band, the conventional Ku-band, the extended Ku-band or the conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine processing under relevant criteria in this section, § 25.211, or § 25.218 are subject to the requirements in § 25.220.
(a) This section applies to applications for fixed and temporary-fixed FSS earth stations transmitting to geostationary space stations in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, extended Ku-band, or conventional Ka-band, and applications for ESIMs transmitting in the conventional C-band, conventional Ku-band, or conventional Ka-band, except for applications proposing transmission of analog command signals at a band edge with bandwidths greater than 1 MHz or transmission of any other type of analog signal with bandwidths greater than 200 kHz.
(b) Earth station applications subject to this section may be routinely processed if they meet the applicable
(i)
(2) For co-polarized transmissions in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(3) The e.i.r.p. density levels specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section may be exceeded by up to 3 dB, for values of θ > 7°, over 10% of the range of theta (θ) angles from 7-180° on each side of the line from the earth station to the target satellite.
(4) For cross-polarized transmissions in the plane tangent to the GSO arc and in the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc:
(5) A license application for earth station operation in a network using variable power density control of earth stations transmitting simultaneously in shared frequencies to the same target satellite receiving beam may be routinely processed if the applicant certifies that the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density from all co-frequency earth stations transmitting simultaneously to the same target satellite receiving beam, not resulting from colliding data bursts transmitted pursuant to a contention protocol, will not exceed the off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits permissible for a single earth station, as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
(j) Applications for authority for fixed earth station operation in the conventional C-band, extended C-band, conventional Ku-band, extended Ku-band, or conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine processing under relevant criteria in this section, § 25.211, or § 25.212 are subject to the requirements in § 25.220.
(a) The requirements in this section apply to applications for, and operation of, earth stations transmitting in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, or the conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine licensing under relevant criteria in §§ 25.211, 25.212, or 25.218.
(a) ESIM transmissions must comport with the applicable e.i.r.p. density limits in § 25.218, unless coordinated pursuant to the requirements in § 25.220.
(b) Each ESIM must be self-monitoring and, should a condition occur that would cause the ESIM to exceed its authorized off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits, the ESIM must automatically cease transmissions within 100 milliseconds, and not resume transmissions until the condition that caused the ESIM to exceed those limits is corrected.
(c) Each ESIM must be monitored and controlled by a network control and monitoring center (NCMC) or equivalent facility. Each ESIM must comply with “disable transmission” commands from the NCMC. In addition, the NCMC must monitor the operation of each ESIM in its network, and transmit a “disable transmission” command to any ESIM that operates in such a way as to exceed the authorized off-axis e.i.r.p. density limit for that ESIM or for all ESIMs that simultaneously transmit on the same frequency to the same target satellite receiving beam. The NCMC must not allow the ESIM(s) under its control to resume transmissions until the condition that caused the ESIM(s) to exceed the authorized e.i.r.p. density limits is corrected.
(d) ESIM licensees must ensure installation of ESIM terminals on vehicles by qualified installers who have an understanding of the antenna's radiation environment and the measures best suited to maximize protection of the general public and persons operating the vehicle and equipment. An ESIM terminal exhibiting radiation exposure levels exceeding 1.0 mW/cm
(e) The following requirements govern all ESV operations.
(1) ESV operators must control all ESVs by a NCMC located in the United States, except that an ESV on U.S.-
(2) There must be a point of contact in the United States, with phone number and address, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with authority and ability to cease all emissions from the ESVs, either directly or through the facilities of a U.S. NCMC or a NCMC located in another country with which the United States has a bilateral agreement that enables such cessation of emissions.
(3) ESV NCMC operators communicating with ESVs on vessels of foreign registry must maintain detailed information on each such vessel's country of registry and a point of contact for the relevant administration responsible for licensing those ESVs.
(f) For all VMES operations, there must be a point of contact in the United States, with phone number and address, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with authority and ability to cease all emissions from the VMESs.
(g) The following requirements govern all ESAA operations.
(1) There must be a point of contact in the United States, with phone number and address, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with authority and ability to cease all emissions from the ESAAs.
(2) All ESAA terminals operated in U.S. airspace, whether on U.S.-registered civil aircraft or non-U.S.-registered civil aircraft, must be licensed by the Commission. All ESAA terminals on U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating outside of U.S. airspace must be licensed by the Commission, except as provided by section 303(t) of the Communications Act.
(3) Prior to operations within a foreign nation's airspace, the ESAA operator must ascertain whether the relevant administration has operations that could be affected by ESAA terminals, and must determine whether that administration has adopted specific requirements concerning ESAA operations. When the aircraft enters foreign airspace, the ESAA terminal must operate under the Commission's rules, or those of the foreign administration, whichever is more constraining. To the extent that all relevant administrations have identified geographic areas from which ESAA operations would not affect their radio operations, ESAA operators may operate within those identified areas without further action. To the extent that the foreign administration has not adopted requirements regarding ESAA operations, ESAA operators must coordinate their operations with any potentially affected operations.
(h) The following requirements govern all operations in the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands of ESVs receiving from or transmitting to GSO satellites in the Fixed-Satellite Service.
(1) ESVs must not operate in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency bands on vessels smaller than 300 gross tons.
(2) ESV operators transmitting in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) frequency band to GSO satellites in the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) must not seek to coordinate, in any geographic location, more than 36 megahertz of uplink bandwidth on each of no more than two GSO FSS satellites.
(3) ESVs, operating while docked, for which coordination with terrestrial stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band is completed in accordance with § 25.251, will receive protection from such terrestrial stations in accordance with the coordination agreements, for 180 days, renewable for 180 days.
(4) ESVs in motion must not claim protection from harmful interference from any authorized terrestrial stations to which frequencies are already assigned, or any authorized terrestrial station to which frequencies may be assigned in the future in the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band.
(5) ESVs operating within 200 km from the baseline of the United States, or within 200 km from a U.S.-licensed fixed service offshore installation, must complete coordination with potentially affected U.S.-licensed fixed service operators prior to operation. The coordination method and the interference criteria objective will be determined by the frequency coordinator. The details of the coordination must be maintained and available at the frequency coordinator, and must be filed with the Commission electronically via the International Bureau Filing System (
(6) An ESV must automatically cease transmission if the ESV operates in violation of the terms of its coordination agreement, including, but not limited to, conditions related to speed of the vessel or if the ESV travels outside the coordinated area, if within 200 km from the baseline of the United States, or within 200 km from a U.S.-licensed fixed service offshore installation. Transmissions may be controlled by the ESV network control and monitoring center. The frequency coordinator may decide whether ESV operators should automatically cease transmissions if the vessel falls below a prescribed speed within a prescribed geographic area.
(7) ESV transmissions in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) band shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. spectral density towards the radio-horizon of 17 dBW/MHz, and shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. towards the radio-horizon of 20.8 dBW. The ESV network shall shut-off the ESV transmitter if either the e.i.r.p. spectral density towards the radio-horizon or the e.i.r.p. towards the radio-horizon is exceeded.
(i) For ESAA transmissions in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band from international airspace within line-of-sight of the territory of a foreign administration where fixed service networks have primary allocation in this band, the maximum power flux density (pfd) produced at the surface of the Earth by emissions from a single aircraft carrying an ESAA terminal must not exceed the following values unless the foreign Administration has imposed other conditions for protecting its fixed service stations:
(j) The following requirements govern all ESIMs transmitting to GSO satellites in the Fixed-Satellite Service in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.
(1) Operations of ESIMs in the 14.0-14.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency band within 125 km (for ESVs and VMESs) or within radio line of sight (for ESAAs) of the NASA TDRSS facilities on Guam (latitude 13°36′55″ N., longitude 144°51′22″ E.), White Sands, New Mexico (latitude 32°20′59″ N., longitude 106°36′31″ W. and latitude 32°32′40″ N., longitude 106°36′48″ W.), or Blossom Point, Maryland (latitude 38°25′44″ N., longitude 77°05′02″ W.) are subject to coordination with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). Licensees must notify the International Bureau once they have completed coordination. Upon receipt of such notification from a licensee, the International Bureau will issue a public notice stating that the licensee may commence operations within the coordination zone in 30 days if no party has opposed the operations. When NTIA seeks to provide similar protection to future TDRSS sites that have been coordinated through the IRAC Frequency Assignment Subcommittee process, NTIA will notify the Commission's International Bureau that the site is nearing operational status. Upon public notice from the International Bureau, all Ku-band ESIM licensees must cease operations in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band within 125 km (for ESVs and VMESs) or within radio line of sight (for ESAAs) of the new TDRSS site until the licensees complete coordination with NTIA/IRAC for the new TDRSS facility. Licensees must notify the International Bureau once they have completed coordination for the new TDRSS site. Upon receipt of such notification from a licensee, the International Bureau will issue a public notice stating that the licensee may commence operations within the coordination zone in 30 days if no party has opposed the operations. The ESIM licensee then will be permitted to commence operations in the 14.0-14.2 GHz band within 125 km (for ESVs and VMESs) or within radio line of sight (for ESAAs) of the new TDRSS site, subject to any operational constraints developed in the coordination process.
(2) Within 125 km (for ESVs and VMESs) or within radio line of sight (for ESAAs) of the NASA TDRSS facilities identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, ESIM transmissions in the 14.0-14.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) band shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. spectral density towards the horizon of 12.5 dBW/MHz, and shall not exceed an e.i.r.p. towards the horizon of 16.3 dBW.
(3) Operations of ESIMs in the 14.47-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency band in the vicinity (for ESVs and VMESs) or within radio line of sight (for ESAAs) of radio astronomy service (RAS) observatories observing in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band are subject to coordination with the National Science Foundation (NSF). The appropriate NSF contact point to initiate coordination is Electromagnetic Spectrum Manager, NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1045, Arlington VA 22203, fax 703-292-9034, email
When NTIA seeks to provide similar protection to future RAS sites that have been coordinated through the IRAC Frequency Assignment Subcommittee process, NTIA will notify the Commission's International Bureau that the site is nearing operational status. Upon public notice from the International Bureau, all Ku-band ESIMs licensees must cease operations in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band within the relevant geographic zone (160 kms for single-dish radio observatories and Very Large Array antenna systems and 50 kms for Very Long Baseline Array
(4) ESIMs licensees must use Global Positioning Satellite-related or other similar position location technology to ensure compliance with the provisions of subparagraphs 1-3 of this paragraph.
(b) Licensed GSO FSS earth stations in the vicinity of operational NGSO MSS feeder-link earth station complexes must, to the maximum extent possible, operate with frequency/polarization selections that will minimize unacceptable interference with reception of GSO FSS and NGSO MSS uplink transmissions in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band. Earth station licensees operating with GSO FSS systems shall be capable of providing earth station locations to support coordination of NGSO MSS feeder link stations under paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section. Operation of ubiquitously deployed GSO FSS earth stations in the 29.25-29.5 GHz frequency band must conform to the rules contained in § 25.218(i).
The holder of an FCC blanket earth station license is responsible for operation of any earth station under that license. Operators of satellite networks and systems must not transmit communications to or from such earth stations in the United States unless such communications are authorized under a service contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket earth station license or under a service contract with another party with authority for such operation delegated by such a blanket licensee.
Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.
Solicitation for membership.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., the United States Department of Agriculture announces the solicitation for nominations to fill vacancies on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and its subcommittees. There are 9 vacancies on the NAREEE Advisory Board; 3 vacancies on the Specialty Crop Committee; 3 vacancies on the Citrus Disease Subcommittee; and 3 vacancies on the National Genetics Advisory Council.
All nomination materials should be submitted in a single, complete package and received or postmarked by July 31, 2017.
The nominee's name, resume or CV, completed and signed Form AD-755, and any letters of support must be submitted via one of the following methods:
(1) Email to
(2) By mail delivery service to Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Attn: NAREEE Advisory Board, Room 332A, Whitten Building.
Michele Esch, Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 332A, The Whitten Building, Washington, DC 20250-2255, telephone: 202-720-3684; fax: 202-720-6199; email:
Nominations are solicited from organizations, associations, societies, councils, federations, groups, and companies that represent a wide variety of food and agricultural interests throughout the country. Nominations for one individual who fits several of the categories listed above,
In your nomination letter, please indicate the specific membership category for each nominee if applying for the NAREEE Advisory Board or the subcommittee. Each nominee must submit a signed form AD-755, “Advisory Committee Membership Background Information” (which can be obtained from the contact person below or from:
Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure the recommendation of the Advisory Board take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.
Please note, individuals may not serve on more than one USDA Federal Advisory Committee. As for Federal Register lobbyists, individuals appointed to the committees to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government (
All nominees will be carefully reviewed for their expertise, leadership, and relevance. All nominees will be vetted before selection.
Appointments to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and its subcommittees will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board was established in 1996 via Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities on top priorities and policies for food and agricultural research, education, extension, and economics. Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 was amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to reduce the number of members on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board to 25 members and required the Board to also provide advice to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
Since the Advisory Boards inception by congressional legislation in 1996, each member has represented a specific category related to farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, non-land grant college or university with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. The Board was first appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in September 1996 and one-third of its members were appointed for a one, two, and three-year term, respectively. The terms for 9 members who represent specific categories will expire September 30, 2017. Nominations for a 3-year appointment for these 9 vacant categories are sought. All nominees will
The 9 slots to be filled are:
The Specialty Crop Committee was created as a subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board in accordance with the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 under Title III, Section 303 of Public Law 108-465. The committee was formulated to study the scope and effectiveness of research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry. The legislation defines “specialty crops” as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops (including floriculture). The Agricultural Act of 2014 further expanded the scope of the Specialty Crop Committee to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on the relevancy review process of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, a granting program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Members should represent the breadth of the specialty crop industry. 6 members of the Specialty Crop Committee are also members of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and 6 members represent various disciplines of the specialty crop industry.
The terms of 3 members will expire on September 30, 2017. The Specialty Crop Committee is soliciting nominations to fill 3 vacant positions to represent the specialty crop industry. Appointed members will serve 3 years with their terms expiring in September 2020.
The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council was re-established in 2012 as a permanent subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board to formulate recommendations on actions and policies for the collection, maintenance, and utilization of genetic resources; to make recommendations for coordination of genetic resources plans of several domestic and international organizations; and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Genetic Resources Program, part of the Agricultural Research Service, of new and innovative approaches to genetic resources conservation.
The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council membership is required to have two-thirds of the appointed members from scientific disciplines relevant to the National Genetic Resources Program including agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, natural resource sciences, health sciences, and nutritional sciences; and one-third of the appointed members from the general public including leaders in fields of public policy, trade, international development, law, or management.
The terms of 3 members of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council will expire on September 30, 2017. We are seeking nominations for a 3-year appointment effective October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2020. The 3 slots to be filled are to be composed of 2 scientific members and 1 general public member.
The Citrus Disease Subcommittee was established by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Sec. 7103) to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on citrus research, extension, and development needs, engage in regular consultation and collaboration with USDA and other organizations involved in citrus, and provide recommendations for research and extension activities related to citrus disease. The Citrus Disease Subcommittee will also advise the Department on the research and extension agenda of the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program, a granting program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
The subcommittee is composed of 9 members who
The terms of 3 Citrus Disease Subcommittee will expire on September 30, 2017. The Citrus Disease Subcommittee is soliciting nominations to fill 3 vacant positons for membership; 1 position is to represent Florida, 1 position is to represent California or Arizona, and 1 position is to represent Texas. Appointed members will serve 3 years with their terms expiring in September 2020.
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 17, 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
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Section 319.56-30 provides the requirements for the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico, under certain conditions. These requirements include information collection activities, such as workplans, phytosanitary certificates, trust funds, import permits, box markings, an approved municipality listing and municipality surveys, packinghouse registration, orchard and grower registration, orchard surveys, field records, container seals, stickers on fruit, a training program for personnel in surveying, pest detection investigations, port of entry inspections, post-harvest inspections, and recordkeeping.
We have revised the title of this collection from “Importation of Hass Avocados From Michoacán, Mexico,” to “Importation of Hass Avocados From Mexico” to more accurately reflect the title of § 319.56-30.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with accrediting nongovernment facilities to perform services related to the export of plants or plant products.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on accrediting nongovernment facilities to perform plant related export services, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
The export certification regulations, which are contained in 7 CFR part 353, describe the procedures for obtaining certification for plants and plant products offered for export or reexport. Our regulations do not require that we engage in export certification activities; however, we perform this work as a service to exporters who are shipping plants or plant products to countries that require phytosanitary certification as a condition of entry.
After assessing the condition of the plants or plant products intended for export (
The regulations allow nongovernment facilities (such as commercial laboratories and private inspection services) to be accredited by APHIS to perform specific laboratory testing or phytosanitary inspections that could serve as the basis for issuing Federal phytosanitary certificates, phytosanitary certificates for reexport, or export certificates for processed plant products. The accreditation process requires the use of several information collection activities to ensure that nongovernment facilities applying for accreditation possess the necessary qualifications.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of cape gooseberry from Colombia into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 15, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0044, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the importation of cape gooseberry from Colombia into the United States, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
In accordance with § 319.56-67, cape gooseberry from Colombia may be imported into the United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The conditions include the establishment of pest-free places of production, labeling of boxes prior to shipping, and importation in commercial consignments. The importation also involves certain information collection activities, such as a bilateral workplan, production site registration, trapping, recordkeeping, phytosanitary inspections, and a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Colombia certifying that the fruit has been produced in accordance with the regulations.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments; extension of comment period.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is extending until July 17, 2017, the comment period for its plan to adjust inspection coverage at official establishments that slaughter fish of the order Siluriformes, which include catfish, from all hours of operation to once per production shift.
Submit comments on or before July 17, 2017.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments relevant to adjusting inspection coverage as discussed and outlined in this notice. Only comments addressing the scope of this notice will be considered. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
Rachel Edelstein, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495, or by Fax: (202) 720-2025.
On May 17, 2017, FSIS published a notice announcing that it will be adjusting its inspection coverage at official Siluriformes fish slaughter establishments, starting September 1, 2017, the date of full enforcement of the regulatory requirements for fish, from all hours of operation to once per production shift. This decision is based on the Agency's experience inspecting fish slaughter establishments since implementing the mandatory inspection program on March 1, 2016. FSIS requested comment on this decision on or before June 16, 2017.
A consumer advocacy organization requested that FSIS extend the comment period by 30 days, while it researches the implications of the decision, so as to make informed comments. FSIS agrees to extend the comment period. The comment period will now end on July 17, 2017.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comment
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the availability of and requesting comments on two updated compliance guidelines for small and very small businesses. The new guidelines will assist small and very small meat and poultry establishments understand and comply with the regulatory requirements associated with the destruction of
Submit Comments on or before August 15, 2017.
Downloadable versions of the compliance guidelines are available to view and print at
FSIS is making available an updated compliance guideline regarding the requirements for the destruction of
• Appendix A Compliance Guidelines for Meeting Lethality Performance Standards for certain Meat and Poultry Products.
• Appendix A Guidance on Relative Humidity and Time/Temperature for Cooking/Heating and Applicability to Production of Other Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Products (Appendix A Humidity Guidance).
• Time-Temperature Tables for Cooking Ready-to-Eat Poultry Products.
• FSIS Guidance on Safe Cooking of Non-Intact Meat Chops, Roasts, and Steaks (5-log Table).
FSIS also is making available an updated guideline on the control of pathogen growth in heat-treated RTE and NRTE meat and poultry products during cooling and hot-holding (stabilization), entitled
This updated stabilization guideline contains recommendations previously found in FSIS Appendix B: Compliance Guidelines for Cooling Heat-Treated Meat and Poultry Products (Stabilization) and FSIS Directive 7110.3, Rev. 1,
• The regulatory requirements associated with stabilization (cooling and hot-holding);
• The scientific support documents available to help develop a safe process and product;
• Recommended corrective actions in the event of a cooling deviation; and
• Additional options for cooling meat and poultry products, including requesting a waiver.
Both guidance documents are targeting small and very small establishments in support of the Small Business Administration's initiative to provide small and very small establishments with compliance assistance under the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBRFA). It is important that small and very small establishments have access to the scientific and technical support needed to establish safe and effective HACCP systems. However, all FSIS regulated meat and poultry establishments may be able to apply the recommendations in this guideline.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination, any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at:
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (Council) will meet in Flushing, New York. The Council is authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Additional information concerning the Council, can be found by visiting the Council's Web site at:
The meeting will be held on the following dates and times:
• Tuesday, July 18, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT)
• Wednesday, July 19, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT), and
• Thursday, July 20, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon (EDT) or until Council business is completed.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For an updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at various sites,
Written comments concerning this meeting should be submitted as described under
Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Sidney Yates Building, Room 3SC-01C, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, by cell telephone at 202-309-9873, or by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Introduce new members;
2. Develop the 2017 Accomplishment and Recommendations;
3. Update status of the 2018 grant review;
4. Meet and listen to local constituents urban forestry concerns or opportunities;
5. Provide updates on the implementation of the Ten Year Urban Forestry Action Plan (2016-2026); and
6. Receive Forest Service budget and program updates.
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 submit a request in writing by Tuesday, July 11, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members, however anyone who would like to bring urban and community forestry matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Nancy Stemple, Executive Staff, National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, Sidney Yates Building, Room 3SC-01C, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or by email at
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice identifies the examination procedures that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (the Agency) will use for non-leveraged Rural Business Investment Companies (RBICs) within the Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP).
Information on this Notice may be obtained by contacting David Chesnick, Program Manager, Rural Business Investment Program, Specialty Programs Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4221-S, 1400
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 defines “collection of information” as a requirement for “answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). The collection requirement associated with this Notice is expected to receive less than 10 respondents and therefore the Act does not apply.
Subtitle H of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2009cc
The terms defined in 7 CFR part 4290 are applicable to this Notice.
The RBIP promotes rural economic development through venture capital investment by for-profit RBICs. The mission of the RBIP is to encourage economic growth, innovation, and entrepreneurship by sharing in the financial success of privately owned and managed venture capital investment funds, for the benefit of America's small rural businesses and the customers and communities they serve.
Under RBIP, USDA may license RBICs as either leveraged or non-leveraged. The Agency began accepting applications for non-leveraged status under RBIP on August 6, 2012.
The purpose of this Notice is to define the scope of the annual compliance review for each operating non-leveraged RBIC.
All licensed RBICs are subject to regulatory compliance examinations by USDA under 7 CFR 4290.690. The examination objective is to evaluate and conclude whether the RBIC has appropriately complied with USDA program regulations in 7 CFR part 4290. The examination determines whether investments made by the RBIC were to eligible entities and for authorized purposes under program regulations.
This section of the Notice identifies the procedures the Agency will use in the compliance examination of non-leveraged RBICs.
A. In accordance with 7 CFR 4290.690, the Agency will conduct each year an examination of each non-leveraged RBIC for the sole purpose of evaluating regulatory compliance.
B. The Agency will conduct these regulatory compliance examinations using Agency rules located in subparts G, H, and I—as modified by subpart O—of 7 CFR part 4290 for non-leveraged RBICs.
C. The Agency will apply the definitions of 7 CFR 4290.50 to RBIC examination reports and work papers.
D. The Agency will examine the operations of the RBIC; it will not examine the investors in the RBIC.
E. The Agency will determine whether each investment made by the RBIC is eligible based on the regulations defined in 7 CFR part 4290; the Agency will not examine the quality of the investments made by the RBIC.
F. The Agency will conduct the examination of a non-leveraged RBIC off-site, absent specific authorization from USDA for on-site visits.
G. The Agency will provide a copy of the final examination report and its conclusions to the RBIC.
H. If the portfolio concerns were determined to be ineligible under 7 CFR 4290.700(e) during the compliance examination, the RBIC will have until the end of their next fiscal year to remedy the non-compliance. If the RBIC fails to comply with the Secretary's remedy, the Agency may, in accordance with 7 CFR 4290.3041, revoke the license of the RBIC.
I. As amplified in this Notice, the Agency reviews the RBIC for regulatory compliance only. The Agency does not make any assessments, evaluations, warranties, or representations with respect to any aspect of the financial performance of the RBIP, its investments, or its investors, including their financial strength, likelihood of success, or the quality of, or return on, any investments. The review done by the Agency is strictly for its sole benefit and not for the benefit of any third party. All participants and investors in RBIPs must do their own independent due diligence.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. 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 that the Georgia (State) Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, for discussing potential project implementation on the topic of civil rights and the Olmstead rule in Florida.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday July 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 877-795-3638, conference ID: 4175532.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-795-3638, conference ID: 4175532. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by July 7, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Census Bureau.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Rebecca E. Vilky, 301-763-2162, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-8H172F, Washington, DC 20233-0500 (or via email at
The Census Bureau is requesting generic clearance to conduct customer satisfaction research which may be in the form of mailed or electronic questionnaires and/or focus groups, telephone interviews, or web-based interviews.
The Census Bureau has ranked a customer-focused environment as one of its most important strategic planning objectives. The Census Bureau routinely needs to collect and analyze customer feedback about its products and services to better align them to its customers' needs and preferences. Several programs, products, and distribution channels have been designed and/or redesigned based on feedback from its various customer satisfaction research efforts.
Each research design is reviewed for content, utility, and user-friendliness by a variety of appropriate staff (including research design and subject-matter experts). The concept and design are tested by internal staff and a select sample of respondents to confirm its appropriateness, user-friendliness, and to estimate burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information. Collection techniques are discussed and included in the research, concept, and design discussion to define the most time-, cost-efficient and accurate collection media.
The clearance operates in the following manner: A block of burden hours is reserved at the beginning of the clearance period. The particular activities that will be conducted under the clearance are not specified in advance because they would not be known at the beginning of the clearance period. The Census Bureau provides detailed information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the specific activities a minimum of two weeks prior to the planned start date of the collection. OMB provides any comments it may have prior to the start date of the planned activity. At the end of each year, a report is submitted to OMB that summarizes the number of hours used as well as the nature and results of the activities completed under the clearance.
This research may be in the form of mailed or electronic questionnaires and/or focus groups, telephone or web-based interviews.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The National Environmental Questionnaire and Checklist (EQC) provides federal financial assistance applicants and DOC staff with a tool to ensure that the necessary project and environmental information is obtained. The EQC was developed to collect data concerning potential environmental impacts that the applicant for federal financial assistance possesses and to transmit that information to the Federal reviewer. The EQC will allow for a more rapid review of projects and facilitate DOC's evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of a project and level of NEPA documentation required. DOC staff will use the information provided in answers to the questionnaire to determine compliance requirements for NEPA and conduct subsequent NEPA analysis as needed. Information provided in the questionnaire may also be used for other regulatory review requirements associated with the proposed project, such as the National Historic Preservation Act.
The DOC received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at
The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, and Executive Order 12919, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to assess the capabilities of the defense industrial base to support the national defense. They also develop policy alternatives to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet defense program needs. The information collected from voluntary surveys will be used to assist small- and medium-sized firms in defense transition and in gaining access to advanced technologies and manufacturing processes available from Federal Laboratories. The goal is to improve regions of the country adversely affected by cutbacks in defense spending and military base closures.
Submitted electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at
The Additional Protocol requires the United States to submit declaration forms to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a number of commercial nuclear and nuclear-related items, materials, and activities that may be used for peaceful nuclear purposes, but also would be necessary elements for a nuclear weapons program. These forms provides the IAEA with information about additional aspects of the U.S. commercial nuclear fuel cycle, including: Mining and milling of nuclear materials; buildings on sites of facilities selected by the IAEA from the U.S. Eligible Facilities List; nuclear-related equipment manufacturing, assembly, or construction; import and
Submitted electronically or in paper form.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at
This collection involves the exchange of rated order information between customers and suppliers. Recordkeeping is necessary for administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4501,
Submitted electronically or in paper form.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093 or at
This collection of information provides the certification of the overseas importer to the U.S. Government that specific commodities will be imported from the U.S. and will not be reexported, except in accordance with U.S. export regulations.
Submitted electronically or in paper form.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 14, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
Effective June 16, 2017.
Drew Jackson and Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406 and (202) 482-0193, respectively.
On December 14, 2016, the Department published its
The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090. Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS item numbers 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Export prices and constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
• We revised our calculation of the inland freight (
• We revised the calculation of packing labor;
• We revised the calculation of the recycled copper by-product;
• We revised the calculation of cathode copper;
• We corrected the date of sale variable.
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.
For the companies listed above, which comprise the GD Single Entity and the Hailiang Single Entity, the weighted-average dumping margins are zero. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries for these companies without regard to antidumping duties.
For the PRC-wide entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at an assessment rate for antidumping duties equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above in the Final Results of Administrative Review section.
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters identified above, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This notice also 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Encforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
On June 2, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice in the
Effective June 1, 2017.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs and Liaison Unit, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
In the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), effective June 1, 2017, we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping duty order:
Additional information concerning the Department's Sunset proceedings can be found in the “Filing Information,” “Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders,” and “Information Required from Interested Parties” sections of the
This correction of the notice of initiation is published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 1, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from Brazil. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Villares Metals S.A. (Villares). For the final results of this review, we continue to find that subject merchandise has not been sold at less than normal value.
Effective June 16, 2017.
Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.
On March 1, 2017, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to the order is SSB. The term SSB with respect to the order means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-length flat-rolled products (
After consideration of Villares' April 3, 2017, supplemental questionnaire response, the Department made minor changes to its calculations announced in the
In addition, in our March 10, 2017, supplemental questionnaire, we requested that Villares ensure and confirm that it reported gross unit prices net of any expenses and that any expenses (freight, insurance, merchandise processing fee, harbor maintenance fees, entry fee, etc.) were properly reported in their corresponding expense field.
As a result of this review, we continue to find that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for Villares for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.212(b) and the
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Villares for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review for all shipments of SS Bar from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Villares, will be 0.00 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this administrative review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 64.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value 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 double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Thursday, August 17, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, August 18, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The primary purposes of this meeting are to provide updates on NIST Smart Grid activities and the intersections with Cyber-Physical Systems program activities, and to discuss the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards revision and the NIST Smart Grid research program. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at
The SGAC will meet on Thursday, August 17, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, August 18, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time.
The meeting will be held in Conference Room C103, Building 215 (Advanced Measurement Laboratory), National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at
The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities,
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Thursday, August 17, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, August 18, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. The meeting will be held in Conference Room C103, Building 215 (Advanced Measurement Laboratory), National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. The primary purposes of this meeting are to provide updates on NIST Smart Grid activities and the intersections with Cyber-Physical Systems program activities, and to discuss the NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards revision and the NIST Smart Grid research program. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by submitting their request to Cuong Nguyen at
All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Thursday, August 3, 2017, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen's email address is
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Chris Jeffrey, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 1305 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281, Telephone number (240) 533-0354, email:
This request is for a new information collection.
The Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), developed under the authority of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, is responsible for programs intended to enhance the conservation of coral reefs. We intend to use the information collected through this instrument for conducting a characterization project utilizing a limits of acceptable change (LAC) framework that encompasses the Puerto Rico Northeast Marine Corridor (NMC) as a continuous management area, addressing the following subjects across the area and within individual natural reserves to create the information base required to promote effective management: Biophysical conditions, social conditions, stakeholder identification, stakeholder uses and use patterns, stakeholder knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, and stakeholder and resource use conflicts. The study will build on past work conducted with stakeholders on natural resources and social indicators in the region, developing a social conditions baseline. Social conditions will be characterized via a series of stakeholder participation protocols, which will result in stakeholder identification, use and use patterns, knowledge, attitudes, and belief, and use conflicts. It will engage the four, main NMC stakeholders: Commercial fishers; commercial water operators; recreational boaters, and visitors. All commercial fishers and commercial water operators in the region will be surveyed with an in-person questionnaire. Recreational boaters will be reached by sending out an internet/email survey questionnaire sent to all vessel registrants. Visitors in the NMC will be surveyed using an intercept survey administered twice a month at a ferry location and via self-administered surveys disseminated by commercial water operators. It is expected that these multi-pronged approaches will provide the information necessary to complete a stakeholder characterization for the NMC that can be applied to evaluate LAC conditions and trends.
Information will be collected through the internet, email and in person, on paper.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Danielle Schwarzmann 240-533-0705 or
This request is for a new information collection to benefit resource managers in sanctuaries and proposed sanctuaries (minimum of two sites) that protect marine heritage resources. Maritime heritage preserves and protects valuable historical, cultural and archaeological resources within coastal, marine and Great Lake environments. Maritime heritage resources include prehistoric sites, shipwrecks and naval battlefields. The National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect information from passengers aboard dive and SCUBA operations to ascertain the operator knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards the sanctuary or proposed sanctuary and the number of person-days of diving in the sanctuary/proposed sanctuary and the larger region at a minimum of two sites.
Up-to-date socioeconomic data is needed to support the conservation and management goals of marine heritage resources and to satisfy legal mandates under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has a data gap in the economic value of maritime heritage resources. The information is about person-days and economic value of diving on maritime heritage sites is not available to assess the possible economic benefits of maritime heritage protection to the local economy, or the potential impact on marine and Great Lakes recreation businesses. The type of data targeted for this collection; that is, information on expenditures, main purpose for their trip, knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of divers towards maritime heritage resources and the sanctuary/proposed sanctuary. Thus, current economic information on the importance of dive and SCUBA operations to the local tourism industry is required.
On-site interviews will be completed. Sanctuary staff or representatives will contact each dive operation and survey passengers aboard the dive boats at the end of their trip. An on-site survey will be supplemented by either mailback follow-up surveys or on-line surveys for data like expenditures and importance-satisfaction ratings that cannot be done face-to-face.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Danielle Schwarzmann 240-533-0705
This request is for a new information collection to benefit resource managers in sanctuaries and proposed sanctuaries (minimum of two sites) that protect marine heritage resources. Maritime heritage preserves and protects valuable historical, cultural and archaeological resources within coastal, marine and Great Lake environments. Maritime heritage resources include prehistoric sites, shipwrecks and naval battlefields. The National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect information from dive and SCUBA operations to ascertain the operator knowledge, attitudes and perceptions towards the sanctuary or proposed sanctuary and the number of person-days of diving in the sanctuary/proposed sanctuary and the larger region.
Up-to-date socioeconomic data is needed to support the conservation and management goals of marine heritage resources and to satisfy legal mandates under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431
ONMS has a data gap in the economic value of maritime heritage resources. The information is about person-days and economic value of diving on maritime heritage resources (such as shipwrecks) is not available to assess the possible economic benefits of maritime heritage protection to the local economy, or the potential impact on marine and Great Lakes recreation businesses. The type of data targeted for this collection; that is, information on person-days of diving, knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of dive operations towards maritime heritage resources and the sanctuary/proposed sanctuary. Thus, current economic information on the importance of dive and SCUBA operations to the local tourism industry is required.
On-site interviews will be completed. Sanctuary staff or representatives will contact each operator to set up an appointment to collect the data in person.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 15, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Cliff Hutt, (301) 427-8503, or
This request is for revision and extension of a current information collection. Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
This information collection is being revised to include modified trip summary and cost-earnings logbook forms for the Atlantic Tunas General Category, Swordfish General Commercial, and Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat fisheries. Reporting burden associated with logbooks for the Atlantic Tunas General Category and HMS Charter/Headboat fisheries has been authorized under previous versions of this information collection, but the reporting burden associated with the Swordfish General Commercial permit is new as it was implemented only in 2014, and the category has not previously been selected for logbook reporting.
NMFS collects information via vessel logbooks to monitor the U.S. catch of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, billfish, and tunas in relation to the quotas, thereby ensuring that the United States complies with its domestic and international obligations. The HMS logbook program, OMB Control No. 0648-0371, was specifically designed to collect the vessel level information needed for the management of Atlantic HMS, and includes set forms, trip forms, negative reports, and cost-earning requirements for both commercial and recreational vessels. The information supplied through the HMS logbook program provides the catch and effort data on a per-set or per-trip level of resolution for both directed and incidental species. In addition to HMS fisheries, the HMS logbook program is also used to report catches of dolphin and wahoo by commercial and charter/headboat fisheries by vessels that do not possess other federal permits. Additionally, the HMS logbook collects data on incidental species, including sea turtles, which is necessary to evaluate the fisheries in terms of bycatch and encounters with protected species. While most HMS fishermen use the HMS logbook program, HMS can also be reported as part of several other logbook collections including the Northeast Region Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (0648-0212) and Southeast Region Coastal Logbook (0648-0016).
These data are necessary to assess the status of HMS, dolphin, and wahoo in each fishery. International stock assessments for tunas, swordfish, billfish, and some species of sharks are conducted through ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics periodically and provide, in part, the basis for ICCAT management recommendations which become binding on member nations. Domestic stock assessments for most species of sharks and for dolphin and wahoo are used as the basis of managing these species.
Supplementary information on fishing costs and earnings has been collected via the HMS logbook program. This economic information enables NMFS to assess the economic impacts of regulatory programs on small businesses and fishing communities, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other domestic laws.
Paper logbooks are the primary mode of reporting, but electronic logbooks will be offered on a voluntary basis for the HMS logbook in the near future. Both online and paper reporting options will likely be offered for the Atlantic Tunas General Category, Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat, and Swordfish General Commercial logbooks.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology including online or electronic reporting.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
As part of fishery management plans developed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, owners of commercial fishing vessels in the Hawaii pelagic longline fishery, American Samoa pelagic longline fishery (only vessels longer than 50 feet), Northwestern Hawaiian Islands lobster fishery (currently inactive), and Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish fishery (only vessels longer than 40 feet) must allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to install vessel monitoring system (VMS) units on their vessels when directed to do so by NOAA enforcement personnel. VMS units automatically send periodic reports on the position of the vessel. NOAA uses the reports to monitor the vessel's location and activities, primarily to enforce regulated fishing areas. NOAA pays for the units and messaging. There is no public burden for the automatic messaging; however, VMS installation and annual maintenance are considered public burden.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Effective July 16, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 3/18/2016 (81 FR 14837-14838) and 5/5/2017 (82 FR 21198), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2017.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service listed below from a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of committee meeting.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place.
The meeting will be held on Monday, July 10, 2017, Time 9:30-11:30 a.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will be required to show a government photo ID upon entering West Point in order to gain access to the meeting location. All members of the public are subject to security screening.
The meeting will be held in the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, West Point, New York 10996.
Mrs. Deadra K. Ghostlaw, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, ATTN: Deadra K. Ghostlaw, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at:
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
This amended notice provides information on withdrawal of surplus property at the Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon. This notice amends the Notice published in the
Effective June 16, 2017.
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Division, Attn: DAIM-ODB, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0600, (703) 545-2460. For information regarding the specific property listed below, contact the Army BRAC Division at the mailing address above or email at
In 2005, Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon, was designated for closure under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended. On November 17, 2008 the Department of Army published a Notice in the
This action is authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. 112-74, in accordance with the procedures and authorities of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-510, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Chief of Engineers, Environmental Advisory Board (EAB). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the EAB, please visit the committee's Web site at
The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on July 12, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:30 a.m.
The EAB meeting will be conducted at The Park Place Hotel, 300 East State Street, Traverse City, MI 49684, (231) 946-5000.
Ms. Mindy M. Simmons, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-P, 441 G St NW., Washington, DC 20314; by telephone at 202-761-4127; and by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Department of Defense.
Notice of Availability (NOA) for Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing Implementation of the Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California.
On February 10, 2015, DLA published a NOA in the
Ira Silverberg at 703-767-0705 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT), or by email:
To summarize the comments received, the EPA expressed concerns about the process that DLA will use to identify and manage asbestos-containing materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) during demolition of buildings, to avoid the potential dispersal of Valley Fever spores during ground-disturbing activities, and to determine the appropriate level of NEPA analysis for individual projects. The SJCOG asked for more details about cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed projects. The County also requested additional analysis of transportation impacts and recommended preparing a full Traffic Impact Study in accordance with County Guidelines. In addition, the County was concerned about the potential impacts resulting from the development of 460 acres of prime farmland. DLA considered all comments before making the determination to proceed with a FONSI. Specifically, DLA response letters emphasized that the real property master plan and its component plans are planning level documents used to provide DLA with information to support future capital investment decisions and real property decisions. These documents provide general direction for potential areas and timing for future development. However, until funding is available for the anticipated projects, there is insufficient design information available to conduct detailed analyses, such as a Traffic Impact Study. A more detailed NEPA review will be conducted for individual projects once these projects are further defined. These NEPA analyses will assess the additional impacts identified during the comment period. Specifically, with regard to traffic impacts, DLA noted its ongoing efforts to reduce traffic impacts and greenhouse gas emissions, to promote mass transit options, and to provide flexible work schedules. In addition, DLA committed to engaging the County, SJCOG, and the City of Tracy to conduct a Traffic Impact Study once future projects are further defined. DLA also committed to secure all necessary approvals and permits for potential projects prior to construction. Further, DLA said it will coordinate with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to conversion of prime farmland. This FONSI documents the decision of DLA to implement the RPMP and its component plans at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California. DLA has determined that the Proposed Action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA and no significant impacts on the human environment are associated with this decision.
DLA completed an EA to address the potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed implementation of the RPMP and its component plans at Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, California. This FONSI incorporates the EA by reference and summarizes the results of the analyses in the EA.
Implementing the projects in the RPMP would improve mission capability and installation efficiency by siting and designing modern, energy-efficient, sustainable buildings and infrastructure to supplement existing facilities (and in the future, replace outdated facilities) and by upgrading existing buildings and infrastructure to address life, safety, security, and mission deficiencies. The proposed projects include the construction of 2,170,100 square feet of new buildings and the demolition of 657,822 square feet of existing buildings. The top planning needs that would be addressed through implementation of the RPMP are siting Warehouse 59 and replacing the outside storage area, siting the proposed redesigned access control point, and siting the programmed military construction projects. Additionally, the proposed projects include renewable energy and utility projects; improvements to buildings, roads and pavements, and other infrastructure; and implementation of measures to reduce consumption of energy and water and generation of waste. All projects would be sited to maximize functionality and encourage consolidation and reuse or redevelopment, and be designed to incorporate Net-Zero Energy (NZE) and other sustainable measures.
Component plans of the RPMP include the NZE Study, Sustainability Plan (SP), and Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) for the installation. The NZE Study balances the installation's future energy demand from buildings, industrial processes, fleet vehicles, and equipment with onsite and offsite renewable energy production. The SP provides a pathway for the installation to move toward compliance with relevant Federal mandates regarding sustainability. The IPMP is the installation's annual plan for its pest management program.
Implementation of the NZE Study, SP, and IPMP would enable the installation to reduce energy and fossil fuel use, increase alternative fuel use, achieve an NZE footprint, meet or exceed relevant Federal sustainability mandates, practice sound natural resources stewardship, comply with environmental policies and regulations, and reduce reliance on pesticides while reducing real property damage and maintenance costs.
Office of Management (OM), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 17, 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 Stephanie Valentine, 202-401-0526.
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.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, July 13, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, July 14, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
Katie Runkles; Office of Basic Energy Sciences; U.S. Department of Energy; Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-6529.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference and a public face-to-face meeting of the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee augmented for the review of two EPA draft assessments: Toxicological Review for Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) (
The public teleconference will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). The public face-to-face meeting will be held from Tuesday, August 15, 2017 through Thursday, August 17, 2017, from approximately 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., (Eastern Time) daily.
The public teleconference will be held by telephone only. The public face-to-face meeting will be held at the Residence Inn Arlington Capital View, 2850 S. Potomac Ave., Arlington, VA 22202.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this meeting notice may contact Dr. Shaunta Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via phone at (202) 564-3343, or email at
In response to EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) request that the SAB conduct a peer review of two EPA draft assessments: (1) Toxicological Review of Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (ETBE) and (2) Toxicological Review for tert-Butyl Alcohol (tert-butanol or tBA), the EPA SAB Staff Office augmented the SAB CAAC with subject matter experts, to provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB regarding
The Housing and Urban Development/the City and County of San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD, has adopted the Federal Transit Administration's FEIS #20040148, filed 03/26/2004 with the EPA. HUD/MOHCD was not a cooperating agency for the FEIS. Therefore, recirculation of the document is necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ Regulations.
The National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs FEIS #20080212, filed with EPA on 05/22/2008. NIGC was a cooperating agency with the project. Therefore, recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3 of the CEQ Regulations.
The New Jersey Departments of Environmental Protection and Community Affairs is the lead agency for the above project.
Federal Election Commission
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting on June 22, 2017.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Meeting Will be Closed to the Public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 12, 2017.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the rechartering of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (the Panel), designation of a new chairperson to the Panel, and the next public meeting date for the Panel on Tuesday, August 1, 2017. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests (CDLTs). The Panel will make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator regarding crosswalking and gapfilling for new and reconsidered laboratory codes that are discussed during the Public Meeting Regarding New and Reconsidered Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Codes for the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for Calendar Year (CY) 2018 (2017 CLFS Public Meeting), and provide input on other CY 2018 CLFS issues that are designated in the Panel's charter and specified on meeting agenda. The Secretary approved the rechartering of the Panel on April 25, 2017 for a 2-year period effective through April 25, 2019.
Issues concerning the CY 2018 CLFS that are designated in the Panel's charter and specified in the meeting agenda will be discussed at the Panel Meeting. The deadline to register to be a presenter and to submit written presentations for agenda items during the Panel Meeting (that is, presentations on issues other than payment for new and reconsidered
During the 2017 CLFS Public Meeting, the public, along with the Panel, will hear and pose questions to presenters concerning crosswalking and gapfilling for new and reconsidered CDLTs for calendar year CY 2018. Following the opening remarks of the Panel Meeting, the Panel will address any issues relating to the CY 2018 CLFS new and reconsidered laboratory codes, including making recommendations to the Secretary of HHS and the Administrator of CMS regarding crosswalking and gapfilling for new and reconsidered laboratory codes discussed during the CLFS Public Meeting. The Panel will also provide input on other CY 2018 CLFS issues that are designated in the Panel's charter and specified on the meeting agenda. The Panel will hear oral presentations from the public for a total time period of no more than 1 hour.
Glenn C. McGuirk, Designated Federal Official (DFO), 410-786-5723, email
The Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is authorized by section 1834A(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395m-1), as established by section 216(a) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93), enacted on April 1, 2014). The Panel is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.
Section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel established by the Secretary, composed of an appropriate selection of individuals with expertise in issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. Such individuals may include molecular pathologists, researchers, and individuals with expertise in laboratory science or health economics.
The Panel will provide input and recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), on the following:
• The establishment of payment rates under section 1834A of the Act for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, including whether to use crosswalking or gapfilling processes to determine payment for a specific new test; and
• The factors used in determining coverage and payment processes for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests.
• Other aspects of the new payment system under section 1834A of the Act.
A notice announcing the establishment of the Panel and soliciting nominations for members was published in the October 27, 2014
The Panel charter provides that Panel meetings will be held up to 4 times annually and the Panel Chair will serve for a period of 3 years, which may be extended at the discretion of the CMS Administrator or his or her duly appointed designee. Additionally, the Panel Chair facilitates the meeting and the Designated Federal Official (DFO) or DFO's designee must be present at all meetings.
The Agenda for the August 1, 2017, Panel Meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's charter:
• CY 2018 CLFS new and reconsidered test codes, to be posted on June 16, 2017, on the CMS Web site at
• Other CY 2018 CLFS issues designated in the Panel's charter and further described on the Agenda.
A detailed Agenda will be posted approximately 2 weeks before the meeting, on the CMS Web site at
The Panel's meeting on August 1, 2017 is open to the public. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on federal property, must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.
The following are the security, building, and parking guidelines:
• Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.
• Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.
• Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification (ID) to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.
• Security measures include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds.
• All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.
• All items brought into CMS including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones, are subject to physical inspection.
• The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.
• All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first-floor levels in the Central Building.
• The main-entrance guards will issue parking permits and instructions upon arrival at the building.
Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.
The Panel's recommendations will be posted after the meeting on the CMS Web site at
The Secretary's Charter for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is available on the CMS Web site at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 17, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a public meeting to receive comments and recommendations (including accompanying data on which recommendations are based) from the public on the appropriate basis for establishing payment amounts for new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes being considered for Medicare payment under the clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) for calendar year (CY) 2018. This meeting also provides a forum for those who submitted certain reconsideration requests regarding final determinations made last year on new test codes and for the public to provide comment on the requests.
The Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test (CDLT) Advisory Panel will participate in this meeting by gathering information and asking questions to presenters on July 31, 2017, and will hold a public meeting on August 1, 2017 to discuss matters of the Panel and make recommendations regarding the test codes presented at the CLFS public meeting. In the event the CLFS public meeting needs to extend to August 1, 2017, the CDLT Advisory Panel will convene its public meeting immediately following the CLFS public meeting, rather than starting at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time (E.D.T.) as currently planned.
The CLFS public meeting will be held in the main auditorium of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Central Building, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Glenn McGuirk, (410) 786-5723.
Section 531(b) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554) required the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish procedures for coding and payment determinations for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) that permit public consultation in a manner consistent with the procedures established for implementing coding modifications for International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) (now, ICD-10-CM). The procedures and clinical laboratory fee schedule (CLFS) public meeting announced in this notice for new tests are in accordance with the procedures published on November 23, 2001 in the
Section 942(b) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) added section 1833(h)(8) of the Act. Section 1833(h)(8)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish by regulation procedures for determining the basis for, and amount of, payment for any clinical diagnostic laboratory test for which a new or substantially revised Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code is assigned on or after January 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “new tests”). A code is considered to be substantially revised if there is a substantive change to the definition of the test or procedure to which the code applies (such as, a new analyte or a new methodology for measuring an existing analyte-specific test). (See section 1833(h)(8)(E)(ii) of the Act and 42 CFR 414.502).
Section 1833(h)(8)(B) of the Act sets forth the process for determining the basis for, and the amount of, payment for new tests prior to Calendar Year (CY) 2018 (Beginning January 1, 2018, payments for tests will be set in accordance with the methodologies specified in section 1834A of the Act.). Pertinent to this notice, sections 1833(h)(8)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act require the Secretary to make available to the public a list that includes any such test for which establishment of a payment amount is being considered for a year and, on the same day that the list is made available, causes to have published a notice in the
Two bases of payment are used to establish payment amounts for new tests. The first basis, called “crosswalking,” is used when a new test code is determined to be comparable to an existing test code, multiple existing test codes, or a portion of an existing test code. For a new CDLT that is assigned a new or significantly revised code before January 1, 2018, the new test code is assigned the local fee schedule amounts and the national limitation amount of the existing test. Payment for the new test is made at the lesser of the billed amount, the local fee schedule amounts, or the national limitation amount. (See § 414.508(a)(1)).
The second basis, called “gapfilling,” is used when no comparable existing test is available. When using this method, instructions are provided to each Part A and Part B Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to determine a payment amount for its Part B geographic area for use in the first year. In the first year, for a new CDLT that is assigned a new or substantially revised code before January 1, 2018, the contractor-specific amounts are established using the following sources of information, if available: (1) Charges for the test and routine discounts to charges; (2) resources required to perform the test; (3) payment amounts determined by other payers; and (4) charges, payment amounts, and resources required for other tests that may be comparable or otherwise relevant. In the second year, the test code is paid at the national limitation amount. (See § 414.508(a)(2)).
Under section 1833(h)(8)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Secretary, taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the CLFS public meeting, develops and makes available to the public a list of proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each code, an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on the proposed determinations. Under section 1833(h)(8)(B)(v) of the Act, taking into account the comments received on the proposed determinations during the public comment period, the Secretary then develops and makes available to the public a list of final determinations of final payment amounts for new test codes along with the rationale for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and responses to comments and suggestions received from the public.
After the final determinations have been posted on the CMS Web site, the public may request reconsideration of the basis and amount of payment for a new test as set forth in § 414.509. Pertinent to this notice, those requesting that CMS reconsider the basis for payment or the payment amount as set forth in § 414.509(a) and (b), may present their reconsideration requests at the following year's CLFS public meeting provided the requestor made the request to present at the CLFS public meeting in the written reconsideration request. For purposes of this notice, we refer to these codes as the “reconsidered codes.” The public may comment on the reconsideration requests. (See the November 27, 2007 CY 2008 Physician Fee Schedule final rule with comment period (72 FR 66275 through 66280) for more information on these procedures).
We are following our usual process, including an annual public meeting to determine the appropriate basis and payment amount for new and reconsidered codes under the CLFS for CY 2018.
This meeting is open to the public. The on-site check-in for visitors will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. E.D.T., followed by opening remarks. Registered persons from the public may discuss and make recommendations for specific new and reconsidered codes for the CY 2018 CLFS.
As stated in the
Because of time constraints, presentations must be brief, lasting no longer than 10 minutes, and must be accompanied by three written copies. In addition, presenters should make copies available for approximately 50 meeting participants, since CMS will not be providing additional copies. Written presentations must be electronically submitted to CMS on or before July 14, 2017. Presentation slots will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. In the event there is not enough time for presentations by everyone who is interested in presenting, CMS will accept written presentations from those who were unable to present due to time constraints. Presentations should be sent via email to our CLFS dedicated email box,
We are standardizing the presentation format for the CLFS public meeting. As a result, this year we are requiring presenters to submit all presentations using a standard PowerPoint template that is available on the CMS Web site, at
For reconsidered and new codes, presenters should address all of the following five items:
(1) Reconsidered or new codes and descriptor.
(2) Test purpose and method.
(3) Costs.
(4) Charges.
(5) Recommendation with rationale for one of the two bases (crosswalking or gapfilling) for determining payment for reconsidered and new tests.
Additionally, the presenters should provide the data on which their recommendations are based. Presentations regarding reconsidered and new test codes that do not address the above five items for presenters may be considered incomplete and may not be considered by CMS when making a determination. We may, however, request missing information following the meeting to prevent a recommendation from being considered incomplete.
Taking into account the comments and recommendations (and accompanying data) received at the CLFS public meeting, we intend to post our proposed determinations with respect to the appropriate basis for establishing a payment amount for each new test code and our preliminary determinations with respect to the reconsidered codes along with an explanation of the reasons for each determination, the data on which the determinations are based, and a request for public written comments on these determinations on the CMS Web site by early September 2017. This Web site can be accessed at
The Division of Ambulatory Services in the CMS Center for Medicare is coordinating the CLFS public meeting registration. Beginning June 19, 2017, and ending July 14, 2017, registration may be completed on-line at
• Name.
• Company name.
• Address.
• Telephone numbers.
• Email addresses.
When registering, individuals who want to make a presentation must also specify which new test codes they will be presenting comments. A confirmation will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Individuals must register by the date specified in the
If not attending the CLFS public meeting in person, the public may view the meeting via webcast or listen by teleconference. During the public meeting, webcasting is accessible online at
The meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. We suggest that you arrive at the CMS facility between 8:15 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. E.D.T., so that you will be able to arrive promptly at the meeting by 9:00 a.m. E.D.T. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 8:15 a.m. E.D.T. (45 minutes before the convening of the meeting).
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel. Persons without proper identification may be denied access to the building.
• Interior and exterior inspection of vehicles (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a demonstration, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a demonstration.
Individuals attending the meeting who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special assistance, should provide that information upon registering for the meeting. The deadline for registration is listed in the
HPOG-Impact is one project within the broader portfolio of research that the ACF Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing to assess the success of career pathways programs and models. This strategy includes a multi-pronged research and evaluation approach for the HPOG program to better understand and assess the activities and their results as well as the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) project. In order to maximize learning across the portfolio, survey development for the HPOG and PACE baseline and follow-up surveys has been coordinated, and the majority of the data elements collected in these surveys are similar. (See OMB Control #0970-0397 for PACE data collection.)
Four data collection efforts have been approved for HPOG research: One for approval of a Performance Reporting System (PRS) (approved September 2011); a second for collection of baseline data (approved October 2012); a third for a follow-up survey of participants administered approximately 15 months after random
This
The burden estimate increased from the 60-day notice due to an expected increase in sample size.
PACE is one project within the broader portfolio of research that the ACF Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) is utilizing to assess the success of career pathways programs and models. In addition to PACE, this strategy includes a multi-pronged research and evaluation approach for the Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG) Program to better understand and assess the activities conducted and their results. In order to maximize learning across this portfolio, survey development for the HPOG and PACE baseline and follow up surveys has been coordinated, and the majority of the data elements collected in these surveys are similar. (See OMB Control #0970-0394 for HPOG data collection.)
Three data collection efforts have been approved for PACE: One for baseline data collection (approved November 2011); a second for data collection activities to document program implementation, data collection activities for an initial follow-up survey of participants administered approximately 15 months after random assignment, and data collection through in-depth interviews for a small sample of study participants (approved August 2013); and a third for a second follow-up survey of participants administered 36 months after random assignment (approved December 2014).
This
Previously approved collection activities under 0970-0397 will continue under this new request, specifically the 36-Month Follow-Up Survey and Follow-Up Survey Contact Information Update Letters.
The burden estimate increased from the 60-day notice due to an expected increase in sample size.
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 meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, 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.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)'s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) aims to address two of SAMHSA's top substance abuse prevention priorities: Underage drinking (UAD; age 12 to 20) and prescription drug misuse and abuse (PDM; age 12 to 25) through the Division of State Program—Monitoring and Reporting Tool. This data collection will allow all DSP programs to report into a standard tool that aligns with the Strategic Prevention Framework model. This request for data collection includes a revision from a previously approved OMB instrument formally known as Partnerships for Success-Management and Reporting Tool.
Monitoring data on SPF model will allow SAMHSA project officers to systematically collect data to monitor their grant program performance and outcomes along with grantee technical assistance needs. In addition to assessing activities related to the SPF steps, the performance monitoring instruments covered in this statement collect data to assess the following grantee required specific performance measures:
• Number of training and technical assistance activities per funded community provided by the grantee to support communities;
• Reach of training and technical assistance activities (numbers served) provided by the grantee;
• Percentage of subrecipient communities that submit data to the grantee data system;
• Number of sub-recipient communities that improved on one or more targeted NOMs indicators (Outcome);
• Number of grantees who integrate Prescription Drug Monitoring Data into their program needs assessment.
Changes to this package include the following:
• Standard language for all DSP-MRT questions;
• New disparities module to align with SAMHSA's monitoring requirements;
• Updated technical assistance section;
• Deletion of cost questions specific to funding amounts and in-kind resources;
• Deletion of advisory council and other workgroup sub-committee questions;
• Addition of Section A specific to SPF-Rx questions;
• Addition of Section B specific to PDO questions;
Please note this notice supersedes the one that was published on 6/12/15.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by July 17, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
James Höemann, Deputy Director, State and Small Cities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, 7th Floor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email James Höemann at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Höemann.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Lisa Steinhauer, Community Planning and Development Specialist, Office of HIV/AIDS Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Lisa Steinhauer at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The addition of narratives to address the five HUD standard rating factors will allow HUD to rate application and further determine eligibility and establish grant amounts. Applicants applying for HUD competitive funds are required to respond to these five rating factors in narrative form. These narratives will complement the currently approved budget summary form, and allow HUD to determine if applicants are proposing projects within statutory and regulatory limitations. The five HUD standard rating factors include: Factor 1: Capacity of the Applicant and Relevant Organizational Staff; Factor 2: Need/Extent of the Problem; Factor 3: Soundness of Approach; Factor 4: Leveraging Resources; and Factor 5: Achieving Results and Program Evaluation. New HOPWA competitive applicants will be required to respond to each rating factor within the page limits establish in the grant solicitation. HOPWA renewal applicants will also be required to respond with narratives, but the information will be more limited and focused on continued compliance with the HOPWA program activities originally awarded until their initial grant application.
The reporting and recordkeeping for both HOPWA formula and competitive grant programs are also included in this approval. Technical edits are proposed for forms HUD-40110-C and HUD-40110-D, and are limited to updating outdated references and information currently contained in the forms. Grantees provide annual information on program accomplishments that supports program evaluation and the ability to measure program beneficiary outcomes
Completed technical edits incorporated into forms covered by this proposed information collection, as discussed above.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a. Cover page and Overview pages.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
b. Part 2: Grantee Narrative and Assessment.
i. E.
c. Part 3: Summary Overview of Grant Activities.
i.
a. Cover page and Overview pages.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
b. Part 1: 5. Grantee Narrative and Performance Assessment.
i.
c. Part 3. Accomplishment Data.
i.
d. Part 7: Summary Overview of Grant Activities.
i.
Renewal grants are awarded for a three-year operating period. Currently, there are 82 eligible renewal grantees. The number of respondents listed for HOPWA renewal applications represents one-third of the renewal grantees, or the estimated number of grantees projected to renew HOPWA grants each year. The number of respondents listed for HOPWA competitive applications represents the number of respondents expected to submit an application if funding becomes available in the next three years. Form HUD-40110-C, the APR is submitted by all renewal and competitive grantees on an annual basis. The number of respondents for the APR include 82 renewal grantees, eight (8) current HOPWA competitive grantees, and nine (9) potential competitive grantees, if funding becomes available.
HOPWA grantees and applicants may be required to respond to more than one piece of information collection. The total number of respondents include: 82 Renewal grantees, eight (8) current HOPWA competitive grantees, 40 potential competitive applicants, and 128 current HOPWA formula grantees. The total of 552 total annual responses captures each unique response from the 258 respondents. All annualized costs reflect staff time spent on tasks in the table. The hourly rate is based on a GS-9 for Rest of United States. 26,713 hours * $23.85 = $637,105.05.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: August 15, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Elizabeth Zepeda, Senior Environmental Specialist, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Elizabeth Zepeda at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: August 15, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anupama Abhyankar, Grants Management Specialist, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anupama Abhyankar at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
HUD's Office of Policy Development and Coordination and its Environmental Officers in the field use this information to make funds available to entities directed to receive funds appropriated by Congress. This information is used to collect, receive, review and monitor program activities through applications, semi-annual reports, and close out reports. The information that is collected is used to assess performance. Grantees are units of state and local government, nonprofits and Indian tribes. Respondents are initially identified by congress and generally fall into two categories: Economic Development Initiative-Special Project (EDI-SP) grantees and Neighborhood Initiative (NI) grantees. The agency has used the application, semi-annual reports and close out reports to track grantee performance in the implementation of approved projects.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Documents and other information submitted with these 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 a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358-2281. To locate the
Joyce Russell, (703) 358-2023; (telephone); (703) 358-2281; (fax);
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We issue this notice under the authority of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Documents and other information submitted with these 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 a copy of such documents to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax 703-358-2281. To locate the
Joyce Russell, (703) 358-2023 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); or
On the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We issue this notice under the authority of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of boundary revision.
The boundary of Fort Monroe National Monument is modified to include 44 acres of land, more or less, located in the City of Hampton, Virginia, consisting of two parcels immediately adjacent to the boundary of Fort Monroe National Monument. Subsequent to the proposed boundary revision, the United States will acquire the lands by donation from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The effective date of this boundary revision is June 16, 2017.
The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Northeast Region, New England Office, 115 John Street, 5th Floor, Lowell, Massachusetts 01852, at (978) 970-5262 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Deputy Realty Officer Jennifer Cherry, National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Northeast Region, New England Office, 115 John Street, 5th Floor, Lowell, Massachusetts 01852, at (978) 970-5262.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100506, the boundary of Fort Monroe National Monument is modified to include 44 acres of land, more or less, identified as: Wherry Quarters addition Fee area of 40 acres of land, more or less, and Easement area of 4 acres of land, more or less. These lands are located in the City of Hampton, Virginia, immediately adjacent to the boundary of Fort Monroe National Monument. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 250/133082, dated June 9, 2016.
Specifically, 54 U.S.C. 100506 provides that, after notifying the House
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on multilayered wood flooring from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.
Drew Dushkes (202-205-3229), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI 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.
The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B).
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute an advisory opinion proceeding in the above-captioned investigations.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-565 on March 23, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Epson Portland, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon, Epson America, Inc. of Long Beach, California, and Seiko Epson Corporation of Nagano-Ken, Japan (collectively, “Epson”). 71 FR 14720 (Mar. 23, 2006). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,615,957; 5,622,439; 5,158,377; 5,221,148; 5,156,472; 5,488,401; 6,502,917; 6,550,902; 6,955,422; 7,008,053; and 7,011,397. The Commission's notice of investigation named 24 respondents including Ninestar Technology Company Ltd. of Montclair, California (“Ninestar”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations participated in the investigation. Several respondents were terminated from the investigation on the basis of settlement agreements or consent orders or were found in default. On October 19, 2007, the Commission issued a general exclusion order (“GEO”) and a limited exclusion order. The Commission also issued cease and desist orders (“CDO”) directed to several domestic respondents.
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-946 on January 27, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Epson. 80 FR 4314-16 (Jan. 27, 2015). That complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,366,233; 8,454,116; 8,794,749; 8,801,163; and 8,882,513. The Commission's notice of investigation named numerous respondents. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations participated in the investigation. All the participating respondents were terminated from the investigation as a result of settlement agreements and/or consent motion stipulations. A number of the named respondents defaulted. On October 28, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an initial determination granting Epson's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 by the defaulting respondents. Based on evidence of a pattern of violation and difficulty ascertaining the source of the infringing products, the Commission issued a GEO and CDOs directed to two defaulted domestic respondents on May 26, 2016.
On April 26, 2017, Ninestar, Ninestar Image Tech. Ltd., and Apex Microtech Ltd. (collectively, “Requesters”) filed a request for a consolidated advisory opinion proceeding in both investigations pursuant to Commission Rule 210.79 (19 CFR 210.79). Specifically, Requesters seek an advisory opinion that will declare that their refurbished Epson ink cartridges remanufactured using empty Epson ink cartridges collected from the United States are outside the scope of the GEOs and CDOs issued in both investigations. Requesters also ask that the advisory opinion proceeding be conducted in an expedited manner pursuant to Commission Rule 210.2 (19 CFR 210.2), without a formal hearing or discovery. Epson filed a timely response opposing the request. Thereafter, Requesters filed a motion for leave to file a reply to Epson's response.
The Commission has determined that the request complies with the requirements for institution of an advisory opinion proceeding under Commission Rule 210.79. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute a consolidated advisory opinion proceeding in both investigations and referred the request to the Chief ALJ to designate a presiding ALJ. Epson, the Requesters, and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations are named as parties to the proceeding. The Commission has also determined to deny Requesters' motion for leave to file a reply.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 18) granting complainants' unopposed motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint.
Panyin A Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1022 on September 22, 2016, based on a complaint filed by ResMed Corp. of San Diego, California; ResMed Inc. of San Diego, California; and ResMed Ltd. of New South Wales, Australia (collectively, “ResMed”). 81 FR 65411 (Sept. 22, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain sleep-disordered breathing treatment mask systems and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,960,196 and U.S. Patent No. 9,119,931. The notice of investigation named the following respondents: Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited of Auckland, New Zealand; Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Inc. of Irvine, California; and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Distribution Inc., of Irvine, California (collectively “Fisher & Paykel”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the investigation.
On May 16, 2017, ResMed moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. Fisher & Paykel filed a response not opposing the motion, but reserving their rights to seek sanctions or appropriate relief.
On May 17, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the unopposed motion. The ALJ found that the motion complies with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(1)) and further found that there are no extraordinary circumstances that warrant denying the motion. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID. Thus, the investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 15, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Maria Swineford, (202) 616-0109, Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The substantive revision to this collection include three items: (1) The OJP Budget Detail Worksheet; (2) the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) Tribal Narrative Profile, Budget Detail Worksheet and Demographic Form; and (3) the Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire (FCQ).
The now mandatory OJP Budget Detail Worksheet (BDW) will be streamlined and automated with the intent of reducing the burden on public submissions. The current PDF format will be converted to Excel, providing ease of entry and more accurate detail of budget information. Additionally, the BDW has taken the “consultant/contracts” section and broken the details out into two separate sections, “subrecipient/subgrants” and “procurement contracts” to better categorize the details of proposed consultants. Updated and clearer guidance will also be added to better explain how to complete the BDW and the level of detail required in each section.
The Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) Tribal Community and Justice Profile is designed to allow the tribe to describe its community strengths, resources, challenges, and needs. The applicant may enter as much or as little text as needed to fully describe the community. The CTAS BDW and Demographics Form will be updated to align with the BDW streamlining and automation efforts. In addition to those revisions, the Demographics section of the CTAS BDW is designed to capture the unique characteristics of each tribe in order to paint a more detailed picture of each tribe's strengths and challenges. It requests applicants to provide information regarding tribe information; Uniform Crime Report data; law enforcement information; and facilities, capacities, and capabilities information.
The revised FCQ will include five new questions: Three which are required by legislation regarding nonprofit status; one which is simply a clarification of an existing approved question regarding subawards and procurement contracts; and one regarding executive compensation that is also required by legislation and was already part of the approved OJP solicitation template but was requiring a separate email submission to OJP. Adding it to the FCQ will save the applicant time and effort.
The primary respondents for all three revisions are the same, as listed above. While use of the CTAS BDW and Demographics form is not mandatory, it is required that all applicants ensure that all budget and demographic information requested in the form is included in whichever format the applicant choses to use. OJP intends to require the same with the OJP BDW. The FCQ is also required of all application submissions that do not already have an updated FCQ on file within the last 3 years.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Department of Labor Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This collection has been developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery.
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by August 15, 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 by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
This information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improve service delivery. By, “qualitative feedback,” the DOL means information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but does not entail statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the DOL and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information were not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on DOL services would be unavailable.
The DOL will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collection is voluntary;
• The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collection will not be designed or be expected to yield statistically reliable results or be used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses would require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations would be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that would justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or would be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections could still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results. As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
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 August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for the Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report.
All comments must be received on or before August 15, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, Section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.
The reporting and recordkeeping provisions in 30 CFR part 50, Notification, Investigation, Reports and Records of Accidents, Injuries and Illnesses, Employment and Coal Production in Mines, are essential elements in MSHA's Congressional mandate to reduce work-related injuries and illnesses among the nation's miners.
Section 50.10 requires mine operators and independent contractors to immediately notify MSHA in the event of an accident. This immediate notification is critical to MSHA's timely investigation and assessment of the cause of the accident.
Section 50.11 requires that the mine operator or independent contractor investigate each accident and occupational injury and prepare a report. The mine operator or independent contractor may not use MSHA Form 7000-1 as the investigation report, except if the operator or contractor employs fewer than 20 miners and the injury is not related to an accident.
Section 50.20 requires mine operators and independent contractors to report each accident, injury, and illness to MSHA on Form 7000-1 within 10 working days after an accident or injury has occurred or an occupational illness has been diagnosed. The use of MSHA Form 7000-1 provides for uniform information gathering across the mining industry.
Section 50.30 requires that all mine operators and independent contractors working on mine property report employment to MSHA quarterly on Form 7000-2, and that coal mine operators and independent contractors also report coal production.
Accident, injury, and illness data, when correlated with employment and production data, provide information that allows MSHA to improve its safety and health enforcement programs, focus its education and training efforts, and establish priorities for its technical assistance activities in mine safety and health. Maintaining a current database allows MSHA to identify and direct increased attention to those mines, industry segments, and geographical areas where hazardous trends are developing. This could not be done effectively using historical data. The information collected under part 50 is the most comprehensive and reliable occupational data available concerning the mining industry.
Section 103(d) of the Mine Act mandates that each accident be investigated by the operator to determine the cause and means of preventing a recurrence. Records of such accidents and investigations must be kept and made available to the Secretary or his authorized representative and the appropriate State agency. Section 103(h) requires
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for the Mine Accident, Injury, and Illness Report and Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and 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.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Examinations and Testing of Electrical Equipment, Including Examination, Testing, and Maintenance of High Voltage Longwalls.
All comments must be received on or before August 15, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and 30 CFR parts 75 and 77, mandatory safety standards for coal mines, make this collection of information necessary. Subsection 103(h) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners.
Inadequate maintenance of electric equipment is a major cause of serious electrical accidents in the coal mining industry. It is imperative that mine operators adopt and follow an effective maintenance program to ensure that electric equipment is maintained in a safe operating condition to prevent electrocutions, mine fires and mine explosions. MSHA regulations require the mine operator to establish an electrical maintenance program by specifying minimum requirements for the examination, testing, and maintenance of electric equipment. The regulations also contain recordkeeping requirements that help operators in implementing an effective maintenance program.
(1) Section 75.512 requires that all electric equipment be frequently examined, tested, and maintained by a qualified person to assure safe operating conditions and that a record of such examinations be kept. Section 75.512-2 specifies that required examinations and tests be made at least weekly.
(2) Section 75.703-3(d)(11) requires that all grounding diodes be tested, examined, and maintained as electric equipment and records of these activities be kept in accordance with the provisions of section 75.512.
(3) Section 77.502 requires that electric equipment be frequently examined, tested, and maintained by a qualified person to ensure safe operating conditions and that a record of such examinations be kept. Section 77.502-2 requires these examinations and tests at least monthly.
(1) Section 75.800 requires that circuit breakers protecting high-voltage circuits, which enter the underground area of a coal mine, be properly tested and maintained as prescribed by the Secretary. Section 75.800-3 requires that such circuit breakers be tested and examined at least once each month. Section 75.800-4 requires that a record of the examinations and tests be made.
(2) Section 75.820 requires persons to lock-out and tag disconnecting devices when working on circuits and equipment associated with high-voltage longwalls.
(3) Section 75.821(a) requires testing and examination of each unit of high-voltage longwall equipment and circuits to determine that electrical protection, equipment grounding, permissibility, cable insulation, and control devices are being properly maintained to prevent fire, electrical shock, ignition, or operational hazards. These tests and examinations, including the activation of the ground-fault test circuit, are required once every seven days. Section 75.821(b) requires that each ground-wire monitor and associated circuits be examined and tested at least once every 30 days. Section 75.821(d) requires that, at the completion of examinations and tests, the person making the examinations and tests must certify that they have been conducted. In addition, a record must be made of any unsafe condition found and any corrective action taken; these certifications and records must be kept at least one year.
(4) Section 77.800 requires that circuit breakers protecting high-voltage portable or mobile equipment be properly tested and maintained. Section 77.800-1 requires that such circuit breakers be tested and examined at least once each month. Section 77.800-2 requires a record of each test, examination, repair, or adjustment of all circuit breakers protecting high-voltage circuits.
(1) Section 75.900 requires that circuit breakers protecting low- and medium-voltage power circuits serving three-phase alternating-current equipment be properly tested and maintained. Section 75.900-3 requires that such circuit breakers be tested and examined at least once each month. Section 75.900-4 requires that a record of the required examinations and tests be made.
(2) Section 77.900 requires that circuit breakers protecting low- and medium-voltage circuits which supply power to portable or mobile three-phase alternating-current equipment be properly tested and maintained. Section 77.900-1 requires that such circuit breakers be tested and examined at least once each month. Section 77.900-2 requires that a record of the examinations and tests be made.
Section 75.1001-1(b) requires that automatic circuit interrupting devices that protect trolley wires and trolley feeder wires be tested and calibrated at intervals not to exceed six months. Section 75.1001-1(c) requires that a record of the tests and calibrations be kept.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Examinations and Testing of Electrical Equipment, Including Examination, Testing, and Maintenance of High Voltage Longwalls. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL—Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Examinations and Testing of Electrical Equipment, Including Examination, Testing, and Maintenance of High Voltage Longwalls. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and 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.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.
All comments must be received on or before August 15, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, Section 101 (a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.
Title 30 CFR part 77, subpart C, sets forth standards for surface installations. More specifically, the sections cited in the title of this supporting statement address refuse piles (30 CFR 77.215), and impoundments (30 CFR 77.216). Impoundments are structures that can impound water, sediment, or slurry or any combination of materials, and refuse piles are deposits of coal mine waste (other than overburden or spoil) that are removed during mining operations or separated from mined coal and deposited on the surface. The failure of these structures can have a devastating effect on a community. To avoid or minimize such disasters, MSHA has promulgated standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of these structures; for annual certifications; for certification for hazardous refuse piles; for the frequency of inspections; and the methods of abandonment for impoundments and impounding structures.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Refuse Piles and Impoundment Structures, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and 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.
10:00 a.m., Friday, June 23, 2017
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors
Open.
1. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Statutory Inflation Adjustment of Civil Money Penalties.
2. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Freedom of Information Act.
3. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Safe Harbor.
4. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Corporate Credit Unions.
5. Request for Comment, Overhead Transfer Rate Methodology.
6. Board Briefing, Enterprise Solution Modernization Program.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304
3:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 21, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Appeal of Denial of Official. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (6), and (8).
2. Supervisory Action. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), and (9)(ii).
3. Supervisory Action. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), and (9)(ii).
4. Supervisory Action. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), and (9)(ii).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Before the Board is the petition of the C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (C-10) challenging a license amendment request submitted by NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC (NextEra) for Seabrook Station, Unit 1, located in Seabrook, New Hampshire. Oral argument on standing and contention admissibility will be held on Thursday, June 29, 2017, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EDT. The Board anticipates that oral argument will last approximately three hours.
The argument will take place by online video conference. Citrix
On or before Tuesday, June 27, 2017, each participant shall provide the names of its representatives by email to the Board and the service list. Only designated representatives will be permitted to present oral argument. Each counsel or other representative for each participant in this proceeding who has not already done so must file and serve a notice of appearance on or before Tuesday, June 27, 2017, containing all of the information required by 10 CFR 2.314(b). While each participant should designate one primary spokesperson for the argument, limited response will be permitted from other representatives with a notice of appearance on file to the extent necessary to answer the Board's questions. The Board's law clerk, Julie Reynolds-Engel, will contact the participants' designated representatives by email to provide the web address and telephone number required to participate in oral argument.
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, beginning at 11:00 a.m. EDT, the Board's IT Specialist will conduct a 15- to 30-minute technology test of the online video conferencing system with the participants. Each participant will need (1) a telephone line, (2) a computer or tablet with an embedded or attached web camera, (3) an internet connection with at least 1 Mbps connection speed, and (4) a compatible web browser or iOS or Android application.
The primary purpose of this oral argument is for the Board to ask questions and receive answers concerning standing and contention admissibility issues presented by the pleadings. C-10 shall have 30 minutes to present its arguments on all issues, and the NRC Staff and NextEra shall each have 20 minutes. C-10 may reserve up to 5 minutes of its allotted time for rebuttal. No other rebuttal will be permitted.
In general, the participants should not repeat arguments already presented in their written filings, but should focus on responding to the Board's questions. The argument is not an evidentiary hearing, and the participants therefore should not attempt to introduce evidence during the argument. The participants should advise the Board and the other participants no later than Tuesday, June 27, 2017, if they plan to refer to any type of visual aid during the argument. No material that is not already cited in the record before the Board should be used as a visual aid.
Although the designated representatives will participate remotely, the Board encourages all participants to conduct themselves as if present in-person and to participate from an office setting.
The public is welcome to attend the argument at the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel's hearing room. However, only the designated representatives will be permitted to participate in the argument. Neither signs nor any manner of demonstration will be permitted in the hearing room. Those people wishing to attend the oral argument in person should contact the Board's law clerk, Julie Reynolds-Engel, at 301-415-5680 or
The Board's law clerk will contact the participants by email to provide the telephone number and pass code for listen-only access to oral argument. Members of the public who wish to listen to the conference may also contact the Board's law clerk, Julie Reynolds-Engel, at 301-415-5680 or
After June 29, 2017, a transcript of the oral argument will be available for public inspection electronically on the NRC's Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD). EHD is accessible from the NRC Web site at
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Rockville, Maryland.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7470 (Exemption to the Order Recording and Data Transmission Requirements) to extend until November 15, 2019 the ability to exempt certain members from the recording and order data transmission requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7440 and 7450, respectively, for manual orders. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7400 Series consists of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7410 through 7470 and sets forth the recording and reporting requirements of the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) Rules. The OATS Rules require all Exchange permit holders and associated persons to record in electronic form and report to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), on a daily basis, certain information with respect to orders originated, received, transmitted, modified, canceled, or executed by permit holders in all NMS stocks, as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS,
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7470 contains a sunset provision, which was July 10, 2015. In June 2015, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to extend the sunset provision until July 10, 2019.
The Exchange believes it would be appropriate to extend the sunset provision in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7470 to November 15, 2019 rather than the July 10, 2019 date in the FINRA Rule. At the time FINRA filed its proposed rule change, the National
The Exchange believes that extending the sunset provision in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7470 to the same date that all Small Industry Members must report to the CAT is appropriate and would permit such firms relying on the exemption to continue to do so provided they meet the criteria to qualify until that time. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive changes to the criteria necessary for firms to qualify for an exemption and notes that all of those member organizations currently reporting to OATS or relying on an exemption from OATS reporting will be reporting to the CAT by November 15, 2019.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7470 to extend until November 15, 2019 the ability to exempt certain members from the recording and order data transmission requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7440 and 7450, respectively, for manual orders, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather, as noted above, would enable the Exchange to exempt manual orders received by certain small firms from the OATS reporting requirements through November 15, 2019, the same date that all Small Industry Members must report to the CAT, and thereby avoid imposing potentially unnecessary expense or hardship on those firms that qualify for the exemption as they transition to reporting order information to the CAT Central Repository.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become operative immediately upon filing. In support of its request, the Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay would continue to enable the Exchange to grant small firms exemptions from the OATS requirements as those firms are preparing to report information to the CAT Central Repository, thereby avoiding potentially unnecessary expense or hardship on firms that qualify for the exemption.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Absent such action, a small firm that otherwise would qualify for an exemption would have to comply with the Exchange requirements to record and report manual orders to OATS because the Exchange would not have the authority to grant an exemption during the 30-day pre-operative period. The Commission agrees with the Exchange that waiving the 30-day operative delay would enable the Exchange, in appropriate cases, to prevent unnecessary expense being imposed on small firms. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 3 Park Avenue, 36th Floor, New York, NY 10016.
Jessica Shin, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-5921 or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under the Act as a diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Fund's objective is to provide superior risk-adjusted returns across various market cycles by investing in a diversified portfolio of liquid and illiquid asset classes.
2. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund.
3. The applicants seek an order to permit the Fund to issue multiple classes of Shares, each having its own fee and expense structure, and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees, and CDSCs.
4. Applicants request that the order also apply to any other continuously offered registered closed-end management investment company existing now or in the future for which the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control
5. The Fund currently issues a single class of Shares (the “Initial Class Shares”). Shares are currently being offered on a continuous basis pursuant to a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 at their net asset value per share plus the applicable sales load. The Fund, as a closed-end investment company, does not continuously redeem Shares as does an open-end management investment company. Shares of the Fund are not listed on any securities exchange and do not trade on an over-the-counter system such as NASDAQ. Applicants do not expect that any secondary market will ever develop for the Shares.
6. If the requested relief is granted, the Fund intends to offer multiple classes of Shares, such as the Initial Class Shares and a new Share class (the “New Class Shares”), or any other classes. Because of the different distribution fees, shareholder services fees, and any other class expenses that may be attributable to the different classes, the net income attributable to, and any dividends payable on, each class of Shares may differ from each other from time to time.
7. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Board of the Fund may create additional classes of Shares, or may vary the characteristics described of the Initial Class and New Class Shares, including without limitation, in the following respects: (1) The amount of fees permitted by different distribution plans or different service fee arrangements; (2) voting rights with respect to a distribution plan of a class; (3) different class designations; (4) the impact of any class expenses directly attributable to a particular class of Shares allocated on a class basis as described in the Application; (5) differences in any dividends and net asset values per Share resulting from differences in fees under a distribution plan or in class expenses; (6) any sales load structure; and (7) any conversion features, as permitted under the Act.
8. The Fund will not impose an “early withdrawal charge” or “repurchase fee” on investors who purchase and tender their Shares.
9. Applicants state that, in order to provide some liquidity to shareholders, the Fund is structured as an “interval fund” and makes quarterly offers to repurchase between 5% and 25% of its outstanding Shares at net asset value, pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act, unless such offer is suspended or postponed in accordance with regulatory requirements. Any other investment company that intends to rely on the requested relief will provide periodic liquidity to shareholders in accordance with either rule 23c-3 under the Act or rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act.
10. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or distribution fees will comply with the provisions of Rule 2341 of the Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA Rule 2341”) as if that rule applied to the Fund.
11. The Fund and the Distributor will also comply with any requirements that may be adopted by the Commission or FINRA regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements as if those requirements applied to the Fund and the Distributor. The Fund or the Distributor will contractually require that any other distributor of the Fund's Shares comply with such requirements in connection with the distribution of Shares of the Fund.
12. The Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of Shares based on the net assets of the Fund attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect distribution fees, service fees, and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Fund allocated to a particular class of Shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding Share of that class. Applicants state that the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if it were an open-end investment company.
13. The Fund does not intend to offer any exchange privilege or conversion feature, but any such privilege or feature introduced in the future will comply with rule 11a-1, rule 11a-3, and rule 18f-3 as if the Fund were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 18(a)(2)(A) and (B) makes it unlawful for a registered closed-end investment company to issue a senior security that is a stock unless (a) immediately after such issuance it will have an asset coverage of at least 200% and (b) provision is made to prohibit the declaration of any distribution, upon its common stock, or the purchase of any such common stock, unless in every such case such senior security has at the time of the declaration of any such distribution, or at the time of any such purchase, an asset coverage of at least 200% after deducting the amount of such distribution or purchase price, as the case may be. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that may be a senior security.
2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a registered closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of Shares of the Fund may be prohibited by section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to payment of
3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of Shares of the Fund may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Fund to issue multiple classes of Shares.
5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit the Fund to facilitate the distribution of its Shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder options. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act. Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit the Fund to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1 and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies, which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through asset-based service and/or distribution fees.
3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that the Funds' imposition of asset-based service and/or distribution fees is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
The Fund agrees that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7470—Equities (Exemption to the Order Recording and Data Transmission Requirements) to extend until November 15, 2019 the ability to exempt certain members from the recording and order data transmission requirements of Rules 7440—Equities and 7450—Equities, respectively, for manual orders. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange's Rule 7400 Series consists of Rules 7410—Equities through 7470—Equities and sets forth the recording and reporting requirements of the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) Rules. The OATS Rules require all Exchange member organizations and associated persons to record in electronic form and report to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), on a daily basis, certain information with respect to orders originated, received, transmitted, modified, canceled, or executed by members in all NMS stocks, as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS,
Rule 7470—Equities contains a sunset provision, which was July 10, 2015. In June 2015, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to extend the sunset provision until July 10, 2019.
The Exchange believes it would be appropriate to extend the sunset provision in Rule 7470—Equities to November 15, 2019 rather than the July 10, 2019 date in the FINRA Rule. At the time FINRA filed its proposed rule change, the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan”)
The Exchange believes that extending the sunset provision in Rule 7470 to the same date that all Small Industry Members must report to the CAT is appropriate and would permit such firms relying on the exemption to continue to do so provided they meet the criteria to qualify until that time. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive changes to the criteria necessary for firms to qualify for an exemption and notes that all of those member organizations currently reporting to OATS or relying on an exemption from OATS reporting will be reporting to the CAT by November 15, 2019.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that amending Rule 7470—Equities to extend until November 15, 2019 the ability to exempt certain members from the recording and order data transmission requirements of Rules 7440—Equities and 7450—Equities, respectively, for manual orders, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather, as noted above, would enable the Exchange to exempt manual orders received by certain small firms from the OATS reporting requirements through November 15, 2019, the same date that all Small Industry Members must report to the CAT, and thereby avoid imposing potentially unnecessary expense or hardship on those firms that qualify for the exemption as they transition to reporting order information to the CAT Central Repository.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become operative immediately upon filing. In support of its request, the Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay would continue to enable the Exchange to grant small firms exemptions from the OATS requirements as those firms are preparing to report information to the CAT Central Repository, thereby avoiding potentially unnecessary expense or hardship on firms that qualify for the exemption.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Absent such action, a small firm that otherwise would qualify for an exemption would have to comply with the Exchange requirements to record and report manual orders to OATS because the Exchange would not have the authority to grant an exemption during the 30-day pre-operative period. The Commission agrees with the Exchange that waiving the 30-day operative delay would enable the Exchange, in appropriate cases, to prevent unnecessary expense being imposed on small firms. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act regulates the initiation or resumption of quotations in a quotation medium by a broker-dealer for over-the-counter (“OTC”) securities. The Rule was designed primarily to prevent certain manipulative and fraudulent trading schemes that had arisen in connection with the distribution and trading of unregistered securities issued by shell
Based on information provided by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), in the 2016 calendar year, FINRA received approximately 461 applications from broker-dealers to initiate or resume publication of quotes of covered OTC securities on the OTC Bulletin Board and/or OTC Link or other quotation mediums. We estimate that (i) 195 of the covered OTC securities were issued by reporting issuers, while the other 266 were issued by non-reporting issuers, and (ii) it will take a broker-dealer about 4 hours to review, record and retain the information pertaining to a reporting issuer, and about 8 hours to review, record and retain the information pertaining to a non-reporting issuer.
We therefore estimate that broker-dealers who initiate or resume publication of quotations for covered OTC securities of reporting issuers will require 780 hours (195 × 4) to review, record and retain the information required by the Rule. We estimate that broker-dealers who initiate or resume publication of quotations for covered OTC securities of non-reporting issuers will require 2,128 hours (266 × 8) to review, record and retain the information required by the Rule. Thus, we estimate the total annual burden hours for broker-dealers to initiate or resume publication of quotations of covered OTC securities to be 2908 hours (780 + 2,128). The Commission believes that the compliance costs for these 2,908 hours would be borne by internal staff working at a rate of $57 per hour.
Subject to certain exceptions, the Rule prohibits broker-dealers from publishing a quotation for a security, or submitting a quotation for publication, in a quotation medium unless they have reviewed specified information concerning the security and the issuer. The broker-dealer must also make the information reasonably available upon request to any person expressing an interest in a proposed transaction in the security with such broker or dealer. The collection of information that is submitted to FINRA for review and approval is currently not available to the public from FINRA.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7470 (Exemption to the Order Recording and Data Transmission Requirements) to extend until November 15, 2019 the ability to exempt certain members from the recording and order data transmission requirements of Rules 7440 and 7450, respectively, for manual orders. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange's Rule 7400 Series consists of NYSE Rules 7410 through 7470 and sets forth the recording and reporting requirements of the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) Rules. The OATS Rules require all Exchange member organizations and associated persons to record in electronic form and report to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), on a daily basis, certain information with respect to orders originated, received, transmitted, modified, canceled, or executed by members in all NMS stocks, as that term is defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS,
Rule 7470 contains a sunset provision, which was July 10, 2015. In June 2015, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to extend the sunset provision until July 10, 2019.
The Exchange believes it would be appropriate to extend the sunset provision in Rule 7470 to November 15, 2019 rather than the July 10, 2019 date in the FINRA Rule. At the time FINRA filed its proposed rule change, the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan”)
The Exchange believes that extending the sunset provision in Rule 7470 to the same date that all Small Industry Members must report to the CAT is appropriate and would permit such firms relying on the exemption to continue to do so provided they meet the criteria to qualify until that time. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive changes to the criteria necessary for firms to qualify for an exemption and notes that all of those member organizations currently reporting to OATS or relying on an exemption from OATS reporting will be reporting to the CAT by November 15, 2019.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes amending Rule 7470 to extend until November 15, 2019 the ability to exempt certain members from the recording and order data transmission requirements of Rules 7440 and 7450, respectively, for manual orders, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather, as noted above, would enable the Exchange to exempt manual orders received by certain small firms from the OATS reporting requirements through November 15, 2019, the same date that all Small Industry Members must report to the CAT, and thereby avoid imposing potentially unnecessary expense or hardship on those firms that qualify for the exemption as they transition to reporting order information to the CAT Central Repository.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become operative immediately upon filing. In support of its request, the Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay would
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Absent such action, a small firm that otherwise would qualify for an exemption would have to comply with the Exchange requirements to record and report manual orders to OATS because the Exchange would not have the authority to grant an exemption during the 30-day pre-operative period. The Commission agrees with the Exchange that waiving the 30-day operative delay would enable the Exchange, in appropriate cases, to prevent unnecessary expense being imposed on small firms. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to extend through December 31, 2017, the Penny Pilot Program (“Penny Pilot”) in options classes in certain issues (“Pilot Program”) previously approved by the Commission.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to extend the Penny Pilot, which was previously approved by the Commission, through December 31, 2017, and to provide revised dates for adding replacement issues to the Pilot Program. The Exchange proposes that any Pilot Program issues that have been delisted may be replaced on the second trading day following July 1, 2017. The replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity for the most recent six month period excluding the month immediately preceding the replacement (
The Exchange represents that the Exchange has the necessary system capacity to continue to support operation of the Penny Pilot. The Exchange believes the benefits to public customers and other market participants who will be able to express their true prices to buy and sell options have been demonstrated to outweigh the increase in quote traffic.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange 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. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed in order to continue the Pilot Program, which is a competitive response to analogous programs offered by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Washington, DC 20549-2736.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-5 prohibits a broker-dealer from arranging or extending certain loans to persons in connection with the offer or sale of securities unless, before any element of the transaction is entered into, the broker-dealer: (1) Delivers to the person a written statement containing the exact nature and extent of the person's obligations under the loan arrangement; the risks and disadvantages of the loan arrangement; and all commissions, discounts, and other remuneration received and to be received in connection with the transaction by the broker-dealer or certain related persons (unless the person receives certain materials from the lender or broker-dealer which contain the required information); and (2) obtains from the person information on the person's financial situation and needs, reasonably determines that the transaction is suitable for the person, and retains on file and makes available to the person on request a written statement setting forth the broker-dealer's basis for determining that the transaction was suitable. The collection of information required by Rule 15c2-5 is necessary to execute the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to prevent fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and practices by broker-dealers.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 50 respondents that require an aggregate total of 600 hours to comply with Rule 15c2-5.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 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 collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to implement an equity rights program. 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 proposes to implement an equity rights program (“Program”) pursuant to which units representing the right to acquire equity in the Exchange's parent holding company, Miami International Holdings, Inc. (“MIH”) would be issued to a participating Member in exchange for payment of an initial purchase price or the prepayment of certain transaction fees and the achievement of certain liquidity volume thresholds on the Exchange over a 42-month period. The purpose of the Program is to promote the long-term interests of MIAX Options by providing incentives designed to encourage future MIH owners and MIAX Options market participants to contribute to the growth and success of MIAX Options, by being active liquidity providers and takers to provide enhanced levels of trading volume to MIAX Options' market, through an opportunity to increase their proprietary interests in MIAX Options' enterprise value.
Members that participate in the Program will have two options to choose from: (i) An offering of G-Units; and/or (ii) an offering of H-Units.
Members that participate in the G-Unit option of the Program will be issued for each unit (i) 31,407 shares of MIH common stock and (ii) warrants to purchase 383,254 shares of common stock of MIH in exchange for such participant Member's initial cash capital contribution of $188,442, and with such warrants being exercisable upon the achievement by the participating Member of certain volume thresholds on the Exchange during a 42-month measurement period commencing July 3, 2017. A total of 5 G-Units will be offered. The total equity ownership of MIH common stock held by any one participant Member will be subject to a cap of 19.9%.
The warrants will vest in eight (8) tranches: (i) One (1) tranche, upon initial investment; and (ii) seven (7) tranches during a measurement period of months 1-42 of the Program. In addition, the participant Members may earn or lose the right to exercise warrants on a pro-rata basis based upon meeting volume commitments during the measurement periods, as detailed below.
Upon the initial investment, the participant Member would receive common shares equal to 31,407 shares of the common stock and 10% of the warrants will vest. A participant Member will be eligible to earn the remaining warrants during measurement periods provided that the participant has achieved a specified percentage of the total national average daily volume of options contracts reported to The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) (“OCC ADV”) on MIAX Options of all option classes listed on MIAX Options.
The remaining seven (7) tranches, of 90% of the warrants, will vest during the following measurement periods: (i) 10.90% of the warrants resulting from months 1-6, with a volume commitment of 0.400% of OCC ADV on MIAX Options per G-Unit;
Members that participate in the H-Unit option of the Program will be issued for each unit warrants to purchase 414,661 shares of common stock of MIH in exchange for the prepayment of Exchange fees in the amount of $500,000 for the 42-month period commencing July 3, 2017, and with such warrants being exercisable upon the achievement by the participating Member of certain volume thresholds on the Exchange during a 42-month measurement period commencing July 3, 2017. A total of 30 H-Units will be offered. The total equity ownership of MIH common stock held by any one participant Member will be subject to a cap of 19.9%.
The warrants will vest in seven (7) tranches during the following measurement periods: (i) 12.12% of the warrants resulting from months 1-6, with a volume commitment of 0.400% of OCC ADV on MIAX Options per H-Unit;
Once a participant Member has prepaid Exchange fees for the initial 42-month period, each month the participant Member may execute contracts and accumulate transaction fees based on the prevailing MIAX Options Fee Schedule in effect at the time. Once an H-Unit participant Member has executed contract volume whereby the total accumulated transaction fees equal the prepaid amount, all subsequently executed contracts will be billed and collected at the appropriate rate as defined in the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
A Member of the Exchange and its Affiliate as defined in the Fee Schedule of MIAX Options
Each participant Member will have a standard piggyback registration right to include the common shares and the common shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants should MIH file a Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933. Each participant Member will also have the right to participate pro rata in all future offerings of MIH securities for so long as the participant Member holds at least 51% of the common shares purchased by the participating Member directly or issuable upon the exercise of warrants included in at least one H-Unit. MIH will have the right of first refusal to purchase any common shares or warrant shares that a participant Member decides to transfer or sell. Other participant Members will have the secondary right of first refusal to purchase any common shares or warrant shares that a participant Member decides to transfer or sell.
When a participating Member acquires a certain number of units, the Member can appoint one director to the MIH Board and/or the MIAX Options Board. The Exchange notes that the number of non-industry directors on the MIAX Options Board, including at least one independent director, must equal or exceed the number of industry directors and Member representatives, and that additional new non-industry directors and Member representative directors will need to be added in order to maintain this status. The Exchange also notes that any directors that may be selected by a participating Member would not be counted towards the 20% Member representative requirement on the MIAX Options Board. In addition, the Exchange notes that a Member is only entitled to a new seat if they are not currently represented on the MIAX Options Board.
All applicants will be subject to the same eligibility and designation criteria, and all participant Members will participate in the Program on the same terms, conditions and restrictions. To be designated as a participant Member, an applicant must: (i) Be a Member in good standing of MIAX Options; (ii) qualify as an “accredited investor” as such term is defined in Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933;
As discussed above, the purpose of the Program is to encourage Members to direct greater trade volume to MIAX Options to enhance trading volume in MIAX Options' market. Increased volume will provide for greater liquidity and enhanced price discovery, which benefits all market participants. Other exchanges have engaged in the practice of incentivizing increased order flow in order to attract liquidity providers through equity sharing arrangements.
The specific volume thresholds of the Program's measurement periods were set based upon business determinations and analysis of current volume levels. The volume thresholds are intended to incentivize firms to increase the number of orders that are sent to MIAX Options to achieve the next threshold. Increasing the number of orders that are sent to MIAX Options will in turn provide tighter and more liquid markets, and therefore attract more business as well.
MIAX Options will initiate the measurement period on July 3, 2017. The Exchange will notify Members of the implementation of the Program and the dates of the enrollment period by Regulatory Circular, and will post a copy of this rule filing on its Web site. Any MIAX Options Member that is interested in participating in the Program may contact MIAX Options for more information and legal documentation and will be required to enter into a nondisclosure agreement regarding this additional Program information.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because all Members may elect to participate (or elect to not participate) in the Program and earn units on the same terms and conditions, assuming they satisfy the same eligibility criteria as described above. The eligibility criteria are objective; thus, all Members have the ability to satisfy them. The Board also has authorized MIAX Options to offer common shares in MIH to any Member that requests designation to participate in the Program and otherwise satisfies the eligibility criteria to ensure that all Members will have the opportunity to own common shares and thus participate in the Program if they so choose. In addition, participant Members will earn warrants on a pro-rata basis upon meeting fixed volume threshold amounts during the measurement periods that will apply to all participant Members.
The Exchange believes that the methodology used to calculate the volume thresholds is fair, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is based on objective criteria that are designed to omit from the calculation functionality that is not available on the Exchange and types of transactions that are subject to little or no transaction fees. Specifically, the Exchange believes excluding Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Crossing transactions where no fees are paid to the Exchange, special strategies, and contracts as to which a Member acts solely as clearing agent from the number of option contracts executed on the Exchange by any Member is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because participating Members could otherwise game the volume thresholds by executing excess volumes in these types of transactions in which either no transaction fees are charged on the Exchange, or the transaction is subject to a fee cap. The Program is designed to reward participating Members for bringing their orders and quotes to the Exchange to be executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to exclude special strategies from the OCC volume calculation since those transactions are not executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that omitting clearing only transactions from the calculation to be fair and reasonable because the fact that a Member is clearing a trade is coincidental to the choice of where to execute that trade. And, because clearing only transactions are not executed on MIAX Options, they do not fall within the intended transactions that qualify for the Program. In addition, if the Exchange were to reward the party clearing a trade, the Exchange would possibly be double counting that trade—once for the executing party and once for the clearing party. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that counting incidental Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer transactions, which are not crossing transactions, in the number of options contracts executed on the Exchange by a Member is fair and reasonable because in these situations the Priority Customer is not necessarily choosing to execute against another Priority Customer in order to avoid a transaction fee.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to allow Affiliates to participate in the Program is fair, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is being offered to all Members of the Exchange on the same terms and conditions. The Exchange believes that allowing both traditional Corporate Affiliates and also Appointed Market Makers and Appointed EEMs to participate in the Program is reasonable and appropriate because it will provide those participants with a potentially greater opportunity to achieve the volume thresholds in the Program. Also, the Exchange believes that allowing Appointed Market Makers and Appointed EEMs to participate in the Program expands access to the Program to Members that might not otherwise, individually on their own, participate in the Program, which will benefit all market participants by providing greater liquidity on the Exchange, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.
The Exchange believes the Program is equitable and reasonable because an increase in volume and liquidity would benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those market participants that do not participate in the Program. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because, as described above, the Program is designed to bring greater volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants by providing tighter quoting and better prices, all of which perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will improve competition by providing market participants with another option when determining where to execute orders and post liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting participant Members to direct their orders to the Exchange, which will enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that there is an additional competitive burden on non-participant Members, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the Program should incent Members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing a program to attract order flow like the one being proposed in this filing is consistent with the above-mentioned goals of the Act. This is especially true for the smaller options markets, such as MIAX Options, which is competing for volume with much larger exchanges that dominate the options trading industry. MIAX Options has a modest percentage of the average daily trading volume in options, so it is unlikely that the Program could cause any competitive harm to the options market or to market participants. Rather, the Program is an attempt by a small
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
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-28 and should be submitted on or before July 7, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX” or “Exchange”) is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Chapter 16 of IEX Rules to add additional continued listing requirements for exchange traded products (“ETP”) listed under those rules, as well as a related amendment to IEX Rule 14.501 (Notification of Deficiency by IEX Regulation), and several clarifying and conforming changes to IEX Rules 14.101, 14.500, 14.501 and 14.505. The Exchange is also proposing various housekeeping changes throughout Chapter 16 for improved clarity. In addition, the Exchange is proposing to revise certain of the initial and continued listing standards applicable to Linked Securities and Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes in Rules 16.110 and 16.111 respectively. The Exchange has
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statement may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter 16 of IEX Rules to add additional continued listing standards for products listed under those rules (
The Exchange does not currently list any ETPs.
In Nasdaq's recent Commission approved rule filing amending its ETP listing standards, Nasdaq noted that staff of the Commission's Division of Trading and Markets (“DTM”) requested that Nasdaq adopt certain additional continued listing standards for ETPs, citing their concern for potential manipulation of ETPs.
The proposed rule changes would require that ETPs listed by the Exchange without an Exchange Rule Filing maintain the initial index or reference asset criteria on a continued basis. For example, in the case of a domestic equity index, these criteria generally include: (a) Stocks with 90% of the weight of the index must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million; (b) stocks with 70% of the weight of the index must have a minimum monthly trading volume of at least 250,000 shares; (c) the most heavily weighted component cannot exceed 30% of the index, and the five most heavily weighted stocks cannot exceed 65%; (d) there must be at least 13 stocks in the index; and (e) all securities in the index must be listed in the U.S. There are similar criteria for international indexes, fixed-income indexes and indexes with a combination of components.
If an Exchange Rule Filing is made to list a specific ETP, the proposed rule change would require that the issuer of the security comply on a continuing basis with any statements or representations contained in the applicable rule proposal, including: (a) The description of the portfolio; (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets; and (c) the applicability of IEX listing rules specified in such Exchange Rule Filing.
As proposed, the Exchange would initiate delisting proceedings for a product listed under Chapter 16 if any of its continued listing requirements (including those set forth in an IEX rule and those set forth in an Exchange Rule Filing) are not continuously maintained.
The continued listing rules are also proposed to be amended to modify ETP compliance with the minimum 50 beneficial holder requirement for continued listing (the “ETP Beneficial Holder Rule”). Specifically, the portion of the ETP Beneficial Holder Rule regarding when IEX would consider the suspension of trading following the initial twelve month period beginning upon the commencement of trading will be amended to delete the “30 or more consecutive trading days” requirement. IEX's other shareholder tests in the listing rules do not prescribe minimum time frames for compliance and the Exchange believes that more frequent review is not necessary to provide meaningful assurances of liquidity or trading interest. This modification will conform the ETP Beneficial Holder Rule to the other shareholder tests in the listing rules and remove references to a requirement that necessitates daily monitoring of shareholders.
The IEX listing rules would also be modified to require that issuers of securities listed under Chapter 16 must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance. In addition, while any listed ETPs would be subject to the delisting process specified in IEX Rule Series 14.500, the rules would be clarified to make this explicit.
The Rule Series 14.500 would also be clarified to make explicit that in cases where IEX Regulation has notified an ETP that it is deficient under one or more listing standards, the ETP may submit a plan to regain compliance as set forth under the Exchange's listing rules. In this regard, consistent with deficiencies from most other rules that allow issuers to submit a plan to regain compliance,
In addition, proposed amendments to Rule 14.101 would specify that the Exchange's broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities on the Exchange also applies to securities listed under Chapter 16 as well as under Chapter 14.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming and technical changes throughout Chapter 16 to maintain consistency in its rules. For example, the Exchange proposes to consistently use the language “initiate delisting proceedings under the IEX Rule Series 14.500” when describing the delisting process for a product that fails to meet continued listing requirements;
Further, references in the Chapter 16 continued listing standards that state that if the requirements set forth in that particular section are not continuously maintained constitute a reason for IEX to consider the suspension of trading, covers only listing criteria that are explicitly considered continued listing standards for that rule.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to revise certain of the initial and continued listing standards applicable to Linked Securities and Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes in Rules 16.110 and 16.111 respectively to conform to provisions in comparable Nasdaq rules.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (e) of Rule 16.110 (Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies)), which allows the listing of Linked Securities. In addition to providing that the relevant provisions are considered continued as well as initial listing standards (as discussed above generally) the proposed rule change will modify the specific provisions of Rule 16.110(e) to reflect a substantially identical change previously made by Nasdaq to Nasdaq Rule 5710(e).
With respect to Rule 16.111(a)(3) relating to the initial and continued listing standards applicable to Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to conform to current provisions of Nasdaq Rule 5711(a)(iii), as well as to provide that the relevant provisions are considered continued as well as initial listing standards (as discussed above generally). Currently, Rule 16.111(a)(3) provides for two alternative listing standards for Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes. Each alternative includes a requirement that the issuer of the Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes have annual income from continuing operations before income taxes of at least $1,200,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the three most recently completed fiscal years. The Exchange proposes to replace each such requirement with a requirement that the issuer of the Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes have income from continuing operations before income taxes substantially exceeding $1,000,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the three most recently completed fiscal years. As proposed, this provision is substantially identical to
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes accomplish these objectives by enhancing the current continued listing standards, as well as by clarifying that most initial listing standards, as well as certain representations included in Exchange Rule Filings to list an ETP, would be considered continued listing standards. In approving comparable Nasdaq changes to its continued listing standards for ETPs, the Commission found that the proposal is consistent with the Act, noting the importance of continued listing criteria to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the Commission stated that the proposal is designed to ensure that stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio underlying a listed ETP, provide transparency regarding the components of an index or portfolio underlying a listed ETP, ensure that there is adequate liquidity in a listed ETP itself, and provide timely and fair disclosure of useful information that may be necessary to price the listed ETP. Further, the Commission stated that the Nasdaq proposal would increase transparency regarding the process Nasdaq will follow if a listed product fails to meet its continued listing requirements. The Commission also stated that it does not believe Nasdaq's proposal raises any unique or novel regulatory issues.
The continued listing rules will be amended to modify ETP compliance with the ETP Beneficial Holder Rule regarding when IEX would consider the suspension of trading following the initial twelve month period beginning upon commencement of trading by deleting the “30 or more consecutive trading days” requirement. The Exchange believes that this change serves to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general to protect investors and the public interest since it will conform the ETP Beneficial Holder Rule with the other shareholder tests in the listing rules and the Exchange believes that more frequent review is not necessary to provide meaningful assurances of liquidity or trading interest.
Additionally, IEX listing rules will be modified to require that issuers of any securities to be listed under Chapter 16 must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance and to clarify that deficiencies will be subject to potential trade halts and the delisting process in the IEX Rule Series 14.500. The Exchange believes that these amendments will enhance IEX listing rules, thereby serving to improve the national market system and protect investors and the public interest.
Further, IEX listing rules will be amended to clarify the applicability of the Exchange's broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities on the Exchange to securities listed under Chapter 16 as well as under Chapter 14. The Exchange believes that these amendments will enhance IEX listing rules by clarifying the Exchange authority to make listing decisions consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the conforming, technical and housekeeping changes are designed to further the goals of the listing standards by providing clarity and consistency in the Exchange's rules.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the changes to Rules 16.110 and 16.111 to conform to substantially identical Nasdaq rules are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest since the applicable listing standards as revised will continue to provide a strong indication of the issuer's ability to make necessary payments on Linked Securities and Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes. Moreover, the conforming changes are substantially identical to Nasdaq rules that were approved by the Commission or that have become effective and therefore the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new or novel issues not previously considered by the Commission.
For these reasons, IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is based on substantially identical Nasdaq rules and is comparable to NYSE Arca rules, in each case based on DTM Staff guidance. Consequently, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes will have no negative effect on competition.
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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“Paperwork Reduction Act”) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 22d-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) (17 CFR 270.22d-1) provides registered investment companies that issue redeemable securities (“funds”) an exemption from section 22(d) of the 1940 Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-22(d)) to the extent necessary to permit scheduled variations in or elimination of the sales load on fund securities for particular classes of investors or transactions, provided certain conditions are met. The rule imposes an annual burden per series of a fund of approximately 15 minutes, so that the total annual burden for the approximately 4,509 series of funds that might rely on the rule is estimated to be 1127.25 hours.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is based on communications with industry representatives, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Wisconsin dated 06/12/2017.
Effective 06/12/2017.
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
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 15163 C and for economic injury is 15164 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Wisconsin.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, under Section 309 of the Act and § 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. 02/72-0587 issued to Signal Equity Partners, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, under Section 309 of the Act and § 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. 02/72-0610 issued to Gefus SBIC, LP., said license is hereby declared null and void.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Mohammed Isa Yousif Saqar Al Binali, also known as Mohammed Isa al-Binali, also known as Mohamed Isa al-Binali, also known as Mohammed Al-Binali, also known as Mohammad Isa Albinali, also known as Abu Isa Al Salmi, also known as Abu Issa Al-Selmy, also known as Abu Al Silmi, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Mohammad Shafi Armar, also known as Shafi Armar, also known as Mohammed Shafi Armar, also known as Safi Armar, also known as Yusuf al-Hindi, also known as Yousuf-Al Hindi, also known as Yousouf al-Hindi, also known as Farooque, also known as Anjan Bhai, also known as Chote Maula, also known as Gumnam, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the entity known Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia, also known as MMI, also known as Indonesian Mujahideen Council, also known as Indonesian Mujahidin Council, also known as Indonesian Mujahedeen Council, also known as Indonesian Islamic Warriors' Council, also known as Majilis Mujahidin Indonesia, also known as Indonesia (MMI), also known as Majelis Mujahidin Council, also known as Laskar Mujahidin, also known as Laskar Mujahidin Indonesia, also known as LMI, also known as Laskar Mujahidin Majelis Mujahidin, also known as LM3, also known as An Nisa, also known as Righteous Decision-Makers committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Marwan Ibrahim Hussayn Tah al-Azawi, aka Murtada Ibrahim Taha Muhammad al-`Isawi, aka Abu Anas, aka Abu Anas al-Shami, aka Al-Samara'i, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Oussama Ahmad Atar, also known as Oussama Atar, also known as Usama Attar, also known as Usama Atar, also known as Abu Ahmad, also known as Abou Ahmad, also known as Abou Amahad, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Department of State.
Notice.
The Government of Libya has made a request to the Government of the United States under Article 9 of the 1970 UNESCO
Catherine Foster at 202-632-6310, or the Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6301;
A public summary of Libya's request and information about U.S. implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention can be found at the Cultural Heritage Center Web site:
Piedmont and Northern Railroad LLC (PDMT), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to assume operations over approximately 13.04 miles of rail line (the Line) owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), a noncarrier, between Mt. Holly (milepost SFC 11.39) and Gastonia (milepost SFC 23.0), including the Belmont spur between Mt. Holly (milepost SFC 13.6/SFF 0.13) and Belmont (milepost SFF 1.56), in Gaston County, N.C. The verified notice indicates that the Line is currently operated by Piedmont & Northern Railway, Inc., (PNRW) and that, as a result of this transaction, PDMT will become a Class III carrier and replace PNRW as the Line's exclusive operator. PDMT states that PNRW is voluntarily terminating its operations of the Line upon expiration of its agreement with NCDOT and that it does not object to the proposed change in operators. PDMT states that operations will be pursuant to a Railroad License and Operating Agreement (Agreement) dated May 10, 2017, between NCDOT and Progressive Rail Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, which will assign the Agreement to PDMT. PDMT is a wholly owned subsidiary of PGR.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
PDMT certifies that the Agreement does not include any provision or agreement that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier. PDMT certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and further certifies that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million. Under 49 CFR 1150.32(b), a change in operator requires that notice be given to shippers. PDMT certifies that notice of the change in operator was served on the one shipper on the Line.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is July 1, 2017, the effective date of the exemption.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than June 23, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36120, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Kean Burenga, a noncarrier (Burenga), has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Dover and Rockaway River Railroad, LLC (DRRR), upon DRRR's becoming a Class III rail carrier. According to Burenga, he currently controls a class III rail carrier, Belvidere & Delaware River Railway Company, Inc. (BVDR), and possibly a second class III rail carrier, Black River & Western Corp. (BRWC). Burenga states that he is a minority shareholder of DRRR and BRWC and that he is filing this verified notice in an abundance of caution to exempt his control of DRRR were the Board to determine that he controls DRRR and, if the Board were to determine he controls BRWC, that entity too.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in Docket No. FD 36124,
The earliest this transaction can be consummated is July 2, 2017, the
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under §§ 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than June 23, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36125, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Dover and Rockaway River Railroad, LLC (DRRR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to operate pursuant to an agreement a total of approximately 17.4 miles of rail line owned by several railroads (the Dover & Rockaway Railroad, the High Bridge Branch Railroad, and the Chester Branch Railroad) (collectively, the County Railroads), which are all owned by the County of Morris, NJ (the County). The lines at issue are as follows: (1) Chester Branch, between milepost 41.4 at Chester Junction, in Roxbury Township, NJ, and milepost 45.4 in Randolph, NJ; (2) High Bridge Branch, between milepost 22.66 at Ferremonte Junction, in Roxbury Township and milepost 15.2 in Flanders, NJ, and (3) Dover & Rockaway Branch, between milepost 25.7 at D&R Junction in Wharton, NJ, and milepost 31.6 in Rockaway, NJ.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
DRRR states that it will interchange with Norfolk Southern Railway Company at Chester Jct. (also known as Lake Jct.) and D&R Jct. The rail lines are currently managed and operated by Morristown & Erie Railway, Inc. (ME). According to DRRR, ME's lease will expire on June 30, 2017.
The transaction may be consummated on or after July 2, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
DRRR certifies that, as a result of this transaction, its projected revenues will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. DRRR certifies also that the agreement does not involve an interchange commitment.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than June 23, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36124, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy must be served on Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill, PLC, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Athens Line, LLC (Athens), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Central of Georgia Railroad Company (CGA) and CGA's parent company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), and to operate, approximately 38 miles of adjoining rail lines pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement. The lines extend (1) between CGA milepost F-75.5 at Madison, Ga., and CGA milepost F-106.3 at Athens, Ga.,
Athens states that the proposed transaction does not involve any provision or agreement that may limit future interchange commitments. Athens certifies that its projected annual revenues would not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.
The transaction may be consummated on or after June 30, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than June 23, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36122, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Richard H. Streeter, Law Office of Richard H. Streeter, 5255 Partridge Lane NW., Washington, DC 20016.
According to Athens, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Progressive Rail Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Piedmont and Northern Railroad LLC (PDMT), upon PDMT's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is July 1, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). PGR states that it intends to consummate the transaction on July 1, 2017.
PGR will continue in control of PDMT upon PDMT's becoming a Class III rail carrier, and remains in control of Class III carriers Airlake Terminal Railway Company, LLC, Central Midland Railway Company, Iowa Traction Railway Company, and Iowa Southern Railway Company.
PGR certifies that: (1) The rail line to be operated by PDMT does not connect with any other railroads in the PGR corporate family; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect this line with any other railroad in the PGR corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than June 23, 2017 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36121, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017.
Send comments to—Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2017.
Send comments to—Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2017.
Send comments to—Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before July 17, 2017.
Send comments regarding the proposed information collection, including burden estimate, and suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, or via electronic mail to
Bohdan Baczara, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W62-300, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-3784 (voice), 202-366-3897 (fax), or
The ATF includes the employee's name, the type of test taken, the date of the test, and the name of the employer. The ATF is essential to the alcohol testing program. Data on each test conducted, including test results, are necessary to document tests conducted and actions taken to ensure safety in the workplace.
The MIS form includes employer specific drug and alcohol testing information such as the reason for the test and the cumulative number of positive, negative and refusal test results. The MIS data is used by each of the affected DOT Agencies (
There were no comments to the docket.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one individual that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to an executive order issued on September 23, 2001, titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's action described in this notice was effective on June 12, 2017.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On June 12, 2017, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following one individual pursuant to E.O. 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224):
1. AL-JABURI, Attallah Salman 'Abd Kafi (a.k.a. AL JABURI, Atallah Salman
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an information collection notice, entitled Claim for Standard Government Headstone or Marker and Claim for Government Medallion for Placement in a Private Cemetery in the
The notice published May 17, 2017, at 82 FR 22724 is hereby withdrawn as of June 16, 2017.
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at 202-461-5870.
The Department of Veterans Affairs wishes to inform the public it is withdrawing FR Doc. 2017-09946, published on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, 82 FR 22724. This notice was published in error, which produced a premature end date of June 16, 2017 for public comments. A revised 30-day
By direction of the Secretary.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Final rule; extension of compliance date.
FMCSA extends by one year the compliance date of the regulations established in the final rule on lease and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) published on May 27, 2015, and effective on July 27, 2015. The new compliance date is January 1, 2019. The Agency received numerous petitions for reconsideration of the final rule and extended the original January 1, 2017, compliance date to January 1, 2018, to provide time to address the issues raised by the petitioners. As a result of a public meeting with representatives of the passenger carrier industry in October 2016 and further analysis of the petitions for reconsideration, the Agency is extending the compliance date by an additional twelve months to allow time to revise the regulations, while ensuring that carriers have ample time to adjust to the requirements of the revisions. This decision is explained in more detail in a notice of intent published elsewhere in this issue of the
Ms. Loretta G. Bitner, (202) 366-2400,
On May 27, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule entitled “Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers” (80 FR 30164), and effective on July 27, 2015. The American Bus Association (ABA) and the United Motorcoach Association (UMA) filed a joint request to extend the 30-day deadline to submit petitions for reconsideration. On July 1, 2015, the Agency published a document extending that deadline until August 25, 2015 (80 FR 37553). The Agency received 37 petitions for reconsideration, which are filed in the public docket referenced above. After the initial review of these submissions, FMCSA held a public meeting on October 28, 2015, with a cross section of the petitioners to discuss their concerns and to gather additional details about their specific operations. Attending were representatives of small and large bus companies and charter and regular-route operators from across the nation. Two insurance company representatives were also invited and attended because of liability concerns raised in the petitions for reconsideration. Based on these discussions, and after further analysis, FMCSA concluded that some aspects of the petitions for reconsideration have merit. The Agency, therefore, extended the compliance date to January 1, 2018, to allay stakeholder concerns that there would not be sufficient time to adjust passenger carrier operations before compliance with the regulations was required (81 FR 13998; March 16, 2016). After further review of the petitions, the Agency announced on August 31, 2016, that it intended to consider changes to four aspects of the regulations, but it also denied requests to reconsider other issues raised by petitioners of the rule (81 FR 59951). The August 31 document announced that a public roundtable would be held to discuss the four issues that could be addressed by rulemaking. The roundtable was held on October 31, 2016. FMCSA has also published a document elsewhere in this issue of the
FMCSA has determined that this action is a non-significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 2011), and DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 1103, February 26, 1979). The final rule issued in May, 2015, was non-significant; this postponement of the compliance date does not change that designation. This rule has not been reviewed formally by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, September 27, 2010), requires FMCSA to perform a detailed analysis of the potential impact of the final rule on small entities. Accordingly, DOT policy requires that agencies shall strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses and other entities. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis conducted as part of the May 27, 2015, final rule continues to be applicable to this final rule.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Loretta G. Bitner, 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 SBA's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
A rule has federalism implications if it has a substantial direct effect on State
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 $156 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or more in any one year.
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency has determined that this rule does not create an environmental risk to health or safety that would disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This final rule does not require the collection of any personally identifiable information.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. FMCSA has determined this final rule does not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
FMCSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
• y (2) Regulations implementing motor carrier identification and registration reports; and
• y (7) Regulations implementing prohibitions on motor carriers, agents, officers, representatives, and employees from making fraudulent or intentionally false statements on any application, certificate, report, or record required by FMCSA.
Thus, the final action will not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
FMCSA also analyzed this final rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it is not economically significant and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 390 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31134, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678; sec. 212, 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743-1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; sections 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388; and 49 CFR 1.87.
Motor carriers of passengers operating CMVs under a lease or interchange agreement are subject to §§ 390.301, 390.303, and 390.305 of this subpart on January 1, 2019.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Proposal in response to petitions for reconsideration; request for public comments.
In response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on lease and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) published on May 27, 2015 and effective on July 27, 2015, FMCSA intends to revise the regulations to address “chartering” (subcontracting) and the 48-hour delay in preparing a lease. FMCSA is requesting public comment on the proposed responses to the petitions discussed below. In a final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments on this document must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2012-0103 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
Ms. Loretta G. Bitner, (202) 385-2428,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2012-0103), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
The Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
During certain investigations and driver/vehicle inspections, FMCSA encounters passenger-carrying vehicles and drivers that are rented, loaned, leased, interchanged, assigned, or reassigned with few records and little formality, thus obscuring the identity of the party responsible for operational safety of these vehicles. To improve the safety of the travelling public, FMCSA published a final rule on May 27, 2015, concerning the lease and interchange of passenger-carrying CMVs (80 FR 30164). The purpose of the rule is to identify the motor carrier operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and ensure that a lessor surrenders control of the CMV for the full term of the lease or temporary exchange of CMV(s) and driver(s). The Agency received 37 petitions for reconsideration which have been filed in the public docket (Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0103). Upon review of these requests, FMCSA concluded that some have merit. FMCSA, therefore, extended the compliance date of the final rule from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2018 (82 FR 13998; March 16, 2016) to allow the Agency time to complete its analysis and amend the rule where necessary. After further review of the petitions, the Agency announced on August 31, 2016, that it intended to consider changes to four aspects of the final rule and denied requests to reconsider other features of the rule (81 FR 59951). The August 31 notice announced that a public roundtable would be held to discuss the four issues to be addressed by rulemaking. The roundtable was held on October 31, 2016.
The petitions for reconsideration generally argued that FMCSA had taken a regulatory scheme from the trucking industry and applied it to the bus industry, which has an entirely different operating structure and liability regime. Moreover, the petitioners contend that application of these trucking regulations to the bus industry offers no additional protection to the public from illegal or unsafe bus operators. Instead, petitioners contend that the final rule simply adds administrative costs and reduces operational flexibility for bus operators.
The most significant objection raised at the roundtable and by petitioners was that the 2015 final rule treated “chartering” (subcontracting) as equivalent to leasing. Petitioners contend that passenger carriers with FMCSA-issued active passenger carrier “operating authority” registration (as
FMCSA believes that less burdensome regulatory requirements should be considered. Subjecting passenger carriers with operating authority to the full requirements of the leasing rule is not necessary. The Agency, therefore, intends to revise subpart F of 49 CFR part 390 to exclude “chartering” from the leasing requirements of that rule.
The revisions would also extend the emergency 48-hour delay in preparing a lease authorized by 49 CFR 390.303(a)(2) and remove the requirement that passengers actually be on board a bus when the exemption occurs.
FMCSA believes the changes mentioned above would enable the Agency to enhance its safety oversight of passenger carrier operations while implementing a less costly regulatory approach. The changes would be consistent with the intent of the 2015 final rule.
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 |