| Page Range | 28983-29224 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 29081 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29057 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 82 FR 29130 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29141 - Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From All Terms, Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement Between the City of Williston and the Federal Aviation Administration for the Williston Municipal Airport, Williston, FL | |
| 82 FR 29022 - Notice of Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition | |
| 82 FR 29145 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Flexible Sleeper Berth Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 29037 - Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 29119 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Northwest Medical Isotopes; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29091 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Transfer and Consolidation of Public Housing Programs and Public Housing Agencies | |
| 82 FR 29122 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 29142 - RTCA PMC Program Management Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29081 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 82 FR 29079 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Nevada | |
| 82 FR 29076 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 29075 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Hawaii | |
| 82 FR 29147 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 29179 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29142 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 29121 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 29058 - 2017-2018 Award Year Deadline Dates for Reports and Other Records Associated With the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, the Federal Work-Study Programs, the Federal Perkins Loan Program, the Federal Pell Grant Program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program | |
| 82 FR 29038 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21280 | |
| 82 FR 29053 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species; File Nos. 15240-01, 15453-01, 15569-01, 16160-02, 16163-03, 16479-04, 16609, 17086-01, 18016-01, 18537-02, 18890-01, 19508, 19621-01, 19697, 20294, 20339, 20430, 20455, 20465, 20527, 20646, 20993, 21026, 21043, 21155, and 21199 | |
| 82 FR 29062 - Annual Notice of Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program On or After July 1, 2013 | |
| 82 FR 29002 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Fireworks for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 82 FR 28999 - Safety Zone: City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display, Benicia, CA | |
| 82 FR 29002 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 82 FR 28997 - Safety Zone; Verdigris River, Catoosa, OK | |
| 82 FR 29033 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 | |
| 82 FR 29022 - Certain Steel Nails From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind, in Part | |
| 82 FR 29125 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 28994 - Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership-Amendments to the Terms and Schedule of Financial Assistance | |
| 82 FR 29140 - The Indiana Rail Road Company-Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption-in Lawrence, Orange, Washington, Clark and Floyd Counties, Ind. | |
| 82 FR 29093 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0123; International Conservation Grant Programs | |
| 82 FR 29082 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 29063 - Informational Notice Regarding Public Notification Procedures for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project | |
| 82 FR 29021 - Reducing Regulatory Burdens Imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act & Improving Healthcare Choices To Empower | |
| 82 FR 29104 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 29097 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 82 FR 29087 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 29146 - Waiver Request for Aquaculture Support Operations for the 2017 Calendar Year: SADIE JANE | |
| 82 FR 29143 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; New Prime, Inc. (Prime) | |
| 82 FR 29091 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Discretionary Options for Designated Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees | |
| 82 FR 29057 - Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned Patents | |
| 82 FR 29092 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan; Lakes at St. Sebastian Preserve, Brevard County, FL | |
| 82 FR 29095 - Office of the Assistant Secretary-Water and Science; Notice of Termination of a Lease of Power Privilege Process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah Project | |
| 82 FR 29057 - U.S. Air Force Partially Exclusive Patent License | |
| 82 FR 29052 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29141 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 82 FR 28997 - Safety Zone; Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PA | |
| 82 FR 29002 - Safety Zone; Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks, Allegheny River, Miles 12.0 to 12.5, Oakmont, PA | |
| 82 FR 29037 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29082 - National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality: Request for Nominations for Public Members | |
| 82 FR 29083 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Drug Therapy for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis in Adults-An Update | |
| 82 FR 29085 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Psychological and Pharmacological Treatments for Adults With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review Update | |
| 82 FR 29083 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality | |
| 82 FR 29072 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 29065 - Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference | |
| 82 FR 29072 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 29071 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 29070 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 29073 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications | |
| 82 FR 29073 - Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 29064 - Bayshore Solar B, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 29068 - Northwest Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Session | |
| 82 FR 29065 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 29029 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations | |
| 82 FR 29023 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 82 FR 28995 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA | |
| 82 FR 29081 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29074 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal) | |
| 82 FR 29080 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (Renewal) | |
| 82 FR 29075 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal) | |
| 82 FR 29132 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Initial and Continued Listing Standards for the Listing of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks | |
| 82 FR 29123 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 29039 - Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports | |
| 82 FR 29095 - Certain Bar Code Readers, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 29135 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Texas | |
| 82 FR 29136 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Texas | |
| 82 FR 29016 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 29014 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 29089 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29089 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29088 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29088 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29089 - National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29088 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29019 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 29004 - International Mail Manual; Incorporation by Reference | |
| 82 FR 29122 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 29122 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 29122 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 29096 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29177 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulations Associated With Miscellaneous Elections | |
| 82 FR 29126 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule | |
| 82 FR 29130 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02 to Rule 960NY in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options Classes in Certain Issues | |
| 82 FR 29128 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Commentary .02 To Rule 6.72 in Order To Extend the Penny Pilot in Options Classes in Certain Issues Through December 31, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 29003 - Library of Congress License Agreements | |
| 82 FR 29178 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 29090 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Exemption of State-Owned Properties Under Self-Insurance Plan | |
| 82 FR 29088 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Subcommittee | |
| 82 FR 29010 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery | |
| 82 FR 29038 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 29038 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) Program | |
| 82 FR 29119 - Information Collection: Collection of Operator Simulator Training Data | |
| 82 FR 29118 - Information Collection: NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse | |
| 82 FR 29097 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Joint Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, Order, and Final Judgment Under the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act | |
| 82 FR 29077 - Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) | |
| 82 FR 29136 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 29009 - Civil Penalties | |
| 82 FR 29010 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Correction | |
| 82 FR 28983 - Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (7 CFR 457.8) | |
| 82 FR 29120 - Dedication of Commercial-Grade Items for Use in Nuclear Power Plants | |
| 82 FR 29005 - Air Plan Approval; VT; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements | |
| 82 FR 28994 - Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; Withdrawal | |
| 82 FR 28993 - Special Conditions: SNECMA, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature; Withdrawal | |
| 82 FR 29182 - Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds in Construction and Shipyard Sectors |
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Food and Nutrition Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Final rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) finalizes the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions) and makes amendments to the final rule, with request for comment, published in the
This rule is effective June 27, 2017.
Tim Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Product Management, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.
This final rule makes changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions that were published by FCIC on June 22, 2016, as a notice of final rule with request for comment rulemaking in the
Comments were received from 59 commenters. The commenters included persons or entities from the following categories: Insurance company, insurance agent, farmer, financial, producer group, academic, trade association, and other.
The public comments received regarding the final rule with request for comment and FCIC's responses to the comments are as follows:
For producers, the replant payment provides the opportunity and financial support to replant the crop. Since the initial planting generally takes place at an optimal time period available to the producer, replanting the crop likely takes place at a less optimal time in the future. While the odds of producing an above average or high yielding crop are potentially lower, the producer still has a reasonable chance to produce a crop that is worth more than the indemnity payment from the insurance policy. In addition, to potentially avoiding an indemnity, the producer's actual production history yield for that crop year is likely to be higher, having less impact on future crop guarantees. At worst, if the replanted crop fails, the producer still receives the same indemnity payment he or she would have had without replanting—but at least had the chance to earn a larger gain from the marketplace and preserve future crop guarantees.
From a taxpayer's perspective, the replant payment is a way to reduce the cost of the crop insurance program. This is because the replanted crop may produce an average or even above average yield, which results in a reduced (or even no) indemnity payment to the producer. The reduction in indemnity payments reduces the cost of the crop insurance program for taxpayers and mitigates impacts to future premium rates producers would otherwise experience.
Finally, the replant payment provides stability to the local agricultural economy. Encouraging producers to replant their crops helps ensure a more consistent supply of the agricultural commodities that others depend on for their livelihoods—such as livestock producers and grain or food processors thus helping maintain a more consistent supply of agricultural goods for consumers.
A commenter stated they are in total opposition to the proposed change that would require a producer to have to continue replanting his crop all the way through the end of the late planting period. This type of change would only benefit the insurance companies and not the producer, who is the one the policy is intending to protect. A commenter stated that this change could cause a tremendous financial burden on our producers. With the low commodity prices, the yield expected with corn planted that late will not allow a producer to stay in business. A commenter stated the new definition would guarantee producers take a loss in an impossible situation to succeed.
If it is practical for the producer to replant, it is in the best interest of the program and for the producer to replant the crop and potentially make a full crop rather than paying the producer an indemnity, which only covers part of the loss. Further, since the guarantee is not reduced even if the crop is planted during the late planting period, if there is a future yield loss due to an insurable cause of loss, the producer will be indemnified to the same extent as the originally planted lost crop. The final rule was simply intended to add more consistency to determinations of practical to replant so that all producers are treated fairly and equitably. However, as stated more fully below, FCIC is revising the current provisions to lessen the time in which it will generally be considered practical to replant, and provide the general circumstances to be considered by insurance providers in making such a determination to find a proper balance.
Another commenter stated southeast Nebraska and northwest Nebraska producers have to manage their acres completely different. The commenter questioned why these producers should be constrained by one set of dates limiting yield potential and the most key element of farming, flexibility to work around the curve balls that Mother Nature throws producers each year. The commenter stated the same could be said for the state of Missouri and Iowa. Producers in southeast Nebraska, southwest Iowa, northeast Kansas and northwest Missouri all experience similar climates and plant many of the same corn hybrids and soybean varieties and maturities. The commenter stated they could easily be treated the same, but having varying earliest, final, and late period plant dates within this region truly makes no sense to the commenter or the producers the commenter works with in each of these states. Freeze, wind, rain, heat, drought events typically affect all these areas similarly. The commenter states that as farm operations become much larger and they expand their acres, many large producers the commenter works with are farming in three or four of the corners of these states but confused by different dates, when all should be treated the same. They all start planting at the same time and manage their acres in these states the same. The commenter stated it was frustrating that if it's dry in southeast Nebraska, producers have to wait until April 10 to plant but could have started April 5 in Missouri where for sake of argument, say it rained. The
The commenter stated planting in proper soil conditions has the largest impact on final yield in the commenter's opinion. Planting in wet conditions and fighting sidewall compaction limiting plant root ability to get to water and nutrients, uneven emergence forcing plants to compete with each other and runts failing to make an ear. The commenter stated that within this geographic region, an April 1 initial plant date makes sense. Producers in the corners of these four states have started planting April 1 for the last four to five years and for good reasons. It is typically dry and planting conditions are perfect the first half of April. About mid-April each year the “rainy season” will begin on and off through June 1. Producers will try to “mud it in” in desperation, and will fight compaction, achieve uneven stands, or be delayed to a May dry spell and lose yield by date of planting even with a perfect stand. These May plantings will also force the hybrid to directly deal with the heat and dryness of July. Two weeks before and two weeks after pollination is when the corn plant is most successful to yield loss from stress. The commenter stated that planting early allows hybrids to beat this hot period and pollinate in late June or first week of July. These April 1 plantings, nine out of ten years will yield higher or at a minimum the same as these later plantings even if the hybrid corn has to lie in the ground for three weeks waiting to accumulate enough Growth Degree Units (GDU's) to emerge. The commenter stated that today's hybrids are specifically bred for earlier planting dates and better cold stress emergence and they are typically planted in the best soil conditions of the year limiting sidewall compaction, rooting, and uneven emergence. Finally, the commenter stated that as farming operations get larger, and this trend will continue without a doubt, they have to start planting sooner to give them the best opportunity to successfully get the desired crop planted around rain events.
Several commenters stated the proposed change to the planting date will be detrimental to profitability of crops. The commenters stated that there is a potential for dramatic reduction in yield as proven by University research from multiple states. The commenters stated the economic impact to the producers is enhanced because of the fact it is a replant. Most all of the input costs are already spent. This change will require producers to spend more with no choice of making a profit. The commenters asked that FCIC not change the planting dates.
A commenter stated there is resistance to the requirement of replanting the initial crop until the end of the late planting period. A commenter stated they were frustrated by the late planting period. Every producer wants to be as profitable as possible, and have the ability to plant corn and soybeans in the best soil conditions possible. The commenter stated that pushing this date out 20 or 25 days (need aligned as mentioned above) just seems like the producer is being penalized. The producer can go back with soybeans and still have a chance to attain the highest yield before at least June 10. A soybean has an amazing ability to compensate with more branches and pods after weather events, but are day-length sensitive and only have a certain amount of time to build the factory that will feed the pods that will be set. Planting a soybean June 25 will limit plant height, node, and most importantly pod and seed set ability of that plant.
The commenter stated the program should provide flexibility. The commenter has seen this happen. A producer is in a river bottom area. The area hit an extended wet period in late April and May. The producer is not able to plant corn, or if he did, it would drown out. The producer wants to plant soybeans. Another extended wet period is expected (typically mid-June is wet) and the producer cannot plant in early June while it's dry but tries to mud in the soybeans on June 26. Now the soybean stand will also be heavily affected and poor rooting from compaction will allow drought later to “burn them up.” The commenter believed that there should be a period where a conversation between the adjuster and the producer should be had that discusses all these variables and allows a producer to plant ahead of the current date or any date to give the producer the best chance at success and profitability. It seems senseless for the planter to set when it could be planting in ideal soil conditions because of the date in a program. Mother Nature forces the producer to be extremely flexible, especially in a region where the Missouri River or similar geographies, causes a lot of intense weather events through the spring and early summer. The commenter asked FCIC to give the producer flexibility.
FCIC disagrees with the commenter that if a crop deemed practical to replant is not replanted, the premium becomes a government-mandated donation to the insurance company. If it is determined practical to replant the insured crop and the producer elects not to replant the crop, no coverage for the initially planted crop will be provided and no premium will be due. If the producer decides not to replant, the crop would be considered as if it never existed, and the acreage is removed from the acreage report. No indemnity is due, no replant payment is made, and no premium is earned nor payable by the producer.
A commenter stated that no county agent, no agricultural expert, no university study will agree that planting corn as late as May 5 in the Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi region would be considered a good farming practice. In addition, the commenter believed no ag-lender would provide financing for planting this late.
A commenter stated that if it was practical to replant the crop, the crop should be able to achieve the actual production history yield in most years. Replanting at the end of the late planting period would have a marginal chance at achieving that level of production. The commenter suggested that perhaps part of the solution would be to shorten the late planting period.
A commenter encouraged FCIC to further clarify that the revised definition is not intended to be interpreted in such a way that could potentially force a producer to replant a lost or damaged crop after the end of the late planting period or after the final planting date if there is no late planting period for the crop. The commenter believed it would be prudent for FCIC to reiterate to both insurance providers and insurance
Further, while FCIC does not want to hinder producers from maximizing their profits, it must balance this with the taxpayer interest in not paying indemnities when there is a possibility for the crop to reach maturity. FCIC balances the interests of producers with the interests of taxpayers by making a replant payment to offset the costs of replanting and providing for a full guarantee so that if the yield is later reduced, such costs will be indemnified.
A commenter stated that if a specific date needs to be established for “practical to replant,” the commenter requested FCIC consider the following revision, “An insured should be required to plant and replant through the crop's final plant date.” At that point, the acres should not be released for an additional ten days. If after ten days an adequate stand has not emerged, the acres should be released and the producer should be able to go to another crop.
Another commenter stated that to restrict a producer's options at planting time where every minute is critical strikes the commenter as an overly broad fix to a very narrow problem. The commenter suggested that a better solution would be to require that when a producer chooses to plant back to the original crop at any time during the late plant period that this definitively be considered a replant until the late plant period has expired.
A commenter stated that this proposal would force the planting of crops well beyond the recommended dates supported by research conducted by the LSU AgCenter. Yields are reduced by 38 to 52 percent for five of the major crops produced in Louisiana. The economic consequences of which would be devastating to producers which had already suffered losses from the original crop loss.
Several commenters stated that the changes being proposed are considered extreme by LSU AgCenter scientists that work to develop Best Management Practices for the targeted crops. Based upon the best long-term information generated by LSU AgCenter research and extension scientists, the commenters stated they cannot support recommending that producers re-plant at the latest “practical to replant” dates being supported by FCIC. A commenter questioned the origin of these proposed dates and request that FCIC provide science-based information to show
A commenter stated the end of the late planting period for corn in Illinois is June 30. Most agronomic experts would not recommend planting corn this late in Illinois but the change in language would, with some exceptions, require it.
Another commenter stated the proposed replant dates are well past the recommended final planting dates as put forth by LSU, the various seed companies, private consultants and anyone else with practical knowledge of best agronomic practices in the state of Louisiana. With the high production costs of these crops today there is less margin for error than ever before and forcing producers to replant as much as three weeks after recommended final planting date is guaranteeing a potentially crippling financial loss on corn and grain sorghum. On rice and cotton it may not be a guaranteed loss but is almost a certainty not just in reduced yield but in increased costs fighting late season disease, insects, irrigation expense and field work due to a late harvest. While soybeans have the best chance of making a profit with the new proposed replant dates of all the crops it would still be an iffy proposition at best. These proposed changes would make buying higher levels of coverage a risky decision for the producer and expose them to even greater levels of uncertainty, which will lead to more difficulty in securing financing which will ultimately lead to further consolidation with only the largest producers benefitting.
Another commenter stated in the mid-south there is a definite cut off period for corn that is much earlier than the final planting date for late planting (May 5) if a producer wants to make a profitable corn yield in an average weather year. Forcing a producer to plant corn late dooms the producer to a loss and the insurance company to writing a check. If producers need to change crops, allow them to continue to make the switch after the final planting date. The commenter asks that FCIC not make them wait until the final LATE planting date. Producers need to have flexibility to farm the crop that is most likely to produce a full yield in the time period given. Failure to allow that flexibility will cost everyone money. A commenter stated that in light of the unique and unusual conditions that can arise following the failure of the initial crop, the revised definition, in effect, will result in cases where the agronomic realities of planting simply do not align with an assumption the crop will reach physiological maturity. As an example, corn in most of southern Illinois has a final plant date of June 5 followed by a 25-day late planting period. To limit a producer in this situation to the replanting of corn in the last two weeks of June rather than allowing a switch to another crop is not a sound agronomic practice given the low probability of corn reaching maturity before the normal frost date.
A commenter believed that most agronomic experts would not recommend replanting the crop that late, so the producer will be in a position of having to replant a crop at a time that agronomic experts would not recommend. The commenter stated, for instance, the end of the late planting period for corn in Illinois is June 30. Most agronomic experts would not recommend planting corn this late in Illinois. The change in language would, with some exceptions, require it. While this would limit the level of insurance for crops being initially planted later, the crop would still be insurable at the prevented planting level of coverage. On the positive side of the change to the practical to replant language—it would force more consistency in the industry as to when acreage is allowed to be planted to another crop, instead of replanted to the original crop. The producer receives a replant payment and still has the original coverage on the acreage, so there is still coverage on the replanted crop, even if replanted near the end of the late planting period.
With respect to the scenario stated above, the claimed losses are outside of the control of FCIC or the scope of this rule. In the example provided, regardless of whether the producer's original crop failed or produced a full crop, the producer would have lost money. If the producer produced the guarantee of 131 bushels and sold it for $3.30, which equals $432, this is still far below the claimed expenses of $650. Even if the producer had produced the 175 bushels actual production history yield, the producer would only have received $577.50.
A commenter stated that when the final plant date has been reached and during the late planting period, allow and encourage the producer and adjuster in consultation to make a determination and decision; based upon the conditions in the field and area as to when each field is no longer “practical to replant.” By doing so this would enable the producer to fail the first crop and plant to a second different crop, while practical to expect a second crop can reach yield potential and maturity. If the producer should choose to plant back to the original crop, it would be considered a replanted crop.
A commenter stated that the producer and the adjuster have been looked to as the best judge of whether it was practical to replant that crop. Under this definitional change, however, the practical experience and judgment of the producer and the adjuster, which is specifically focused upon that farm, that area, and the unique conditions, would be replaced with a uniform date. Thus, the change effectively declares that it is always practical to replant, not just through the final plant date for the crop but through the late planting period as well. This is not a practical standard given the various adverse situations that trigger replant provisions. Even if the final plant dates and late planting periods were all perfect and consistent across all regions, which they are not, the commenter still strongly believed the producer and adjuster are best suited to make this judgment.
A commenter stated that removing the human and weather elements from the decision-making within this definition and rule would prove detrimental. The decisions should definitively combine both factors. They are not independent of what is decided; only after planting potential has been examined can an accurate determination be made. The word “practical” is at the heart of this issue, even included in the definition; therefore practicality and flexibility become the points of action.
A few commenters stated they have serious concerns about proposed changes to the “practical to replant” definition contained in the interim rule. Beyond the proposed changes, producers were given an inadequate window of time to respond to the changes overlapping the state's harvest period and currently managing disastrous flooding conditions. The commenter stated that in the Southern U.S., where rice is grown, planting windows and options tend to be longer and more diverse. Important replant provisions of the various crop insurance policies only come into play when a first attempt at planting is ruined in whole or in part. In such an adverse situation, the commenters would maintain the producer needs all options at their disposal. The planting dates and windows of Federal crop insurance, while necessary, cannot reflect the best and most practical options for each farm. The commenters believed this determination is best made by the producer and the adjuster on the farm.
A commenter stated that in many cases, if a first crop is washed or flooded out, but the water recedes and the producer has the ability to plant again, planting the same first crop would not be the ideal financial or agronomic decision even if it is still an insurable possibility by the USDA Risk Management Agency dates. To handcuff the producer in these situations where they can only go back to the original crop through the late planting period seems unreasonable. Again, the commenter thinks the current rules, which show deference to the producer and the adjuster to make the best determination for that farm in that situation in that adverse year, is the better model.
The commenters are very concerned about advancing integrity of Federal crop insurance, and the commenters know that clear rules need to be made
Another commenter stated getting the product that will produce the highest yield on a specific soil type, disease environment, is extremely important to the final yield outcome. At the end of
With respect to the availability of seed and other inputs, the previous definition of “practical to replant” stated it will be considered to be practical to replant regardless of availability of seed or plants, or the input costs necessary to produce the insured crop such as those that would be incurred for seed or plants, irrigation water, etc. FCIC inadvertently omitted this sentence from the final rule with request for comments. Therefore, FCIC has modified the definition of “practical to replant” to add that it will be considered practical to replant regardless of the availability of seed or plants, or the input costs necessary to produce the insured crop such as seed or plants, irrigation water, etc. Since the Act only authorizes coverage due to drought, flood or other natural disaster, things such as seed availability, plants or input costs cannot be a consideration when determining whether or not it is practical to replant the crop.
(i) The receipt of a full indemnity or prevented planting payment on both crops that are double cropped is limited to the number of acres for which you can demonstrate you have double cropped or that have been historically double cropped as specified in section 15(h).
The commenters assumption is that the computations laid out in section 15(h)(5) of the Basic Provisions is intended to encompass both situations. However, since the language is no longer included as a part of the lead in to the calculation, FCIC may want to consider adding this language back in so that it is clear this calculation is intended to cover both of these situations (section 15(h) does address a full indemnity or a full prevented planting payment for a first insured crop when a second crop is planted). At the very least, the Prevented Planting Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook will need to make sure and include additional instructions for computing double crop acres for these situations.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053.
FCIC 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.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or 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 rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from beginning farmers or ranchers and limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of Federal crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Final Rule.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(o).
The revisions read as follows:
(h) You may receive a full indemnity, or a full prevented planting payment for a first insured crop when a second crop is planted on the same acreage in the same crop year, if each of the following conditions are met, regardless of whether or not the second crop is insured or sustains an insurable loss:
(1) Planting two or more crops for harvest in the same crop year in the area is generally recognized by agricultural experts or organic agricultural experts;
(2) The second or more crops are customarily planted after the first insured crop for harvest on the same acreage in the same crop year in the area;
(3) Additional coverage insurance offered under the authority of the Act is available in the county on the two or more crops that are double cropped;
(4) In the case of prevented planting, the second crop is not planted on or prior to the final planting date or, if applicable, prior to the end of the late planting period for the first insured crop;
(5) You provide records, acceptable to us, of acreage and production specific to the double cropped acreage proving that:
(i) You have double cropped acreage in at least two of the last four crop years in which the first insured crop was planted and incur an insurable loss or the first insured crop is prevented from being planted and a second crop is planted. If you acquired additional land for the current crop year you may apply the percentage of acres that you have previously double cropped to the total cropland acres that you are farming this year (if greater) using the following calculation:
(A) Determine the number of acres of the first insured crop that were double cropped in each of the years for which double cropping records are provided (For example, records are provided showing: 100 acres of wheat planted in 2016 and 50 of those acres were double cropped with soybeans; and 100 acres of wheat planted in 2017 and 70 of those acres were double cropped with soybeans);
(B) Divide each result of section 15(h)(5)(i)(A) by the number of acres of the first insured crop that were planted in each respective year (In the example above, 50 divided by 100 equals 50 percent of the first insured crop acres that were double cropped in 2016 and 70 divided by 100 equals 70 percent of the first insured crop acres that were double cropped in 2017);
(C) Add the results of section 15(h)(5)(i)(B) and divide by the number of years the first insured crop was double cropped (In the example above, 50 plus 70 equals 120 divided by 2 equals 60 percent); and
(D) Multiply the result of 15(h)(5)(i)(C) by the number of insured acres of the first insured crop (In the example above, 60 percent multiplied by the number of wheat acres insured in 2018); or
(ii) The applicable acreage was double cropped (by one or more other producers, and the producer(s) will allow you to use their records) for at least two of the last four crop years in which the first insured crop was grown on it; and
(6) If you do not have records of acreage and production specific to the double cropped acreage, as required in section 15(h)(5), but instead have records that combine production from acreage you double cropped with records of production from acreage you did not double crop, we will allocate the first and second crop production to the specific acreage in proportion to the liability for the acreage that was and was not double cropped.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing previously published special conditions for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. We are requesting the withdrawal because the “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT) is not needed.
As of June 27, 2017, the special conditions published on October 31, 2014, at 79 FR 64666, are withdrawn.
Tara Fitzgerald, ANE-112, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7130; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email
On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE) applied for a new type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. At that time, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model was to have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology described in the airworthiness standards for aircraft engines. The design feature included an additional takeoff rating for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model, named “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT). It was intended to maintain the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 10 minutes with one engine inoperative (OEI).
The FAA is withdrawing Notice No. 33-014-01-SC because of concerns raised over the sufficiency of the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” special condition to meet the Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS) design requirement specified in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, section I25.5(b)(2).
The proposed takeoff rating was for use during OEI events that occur during takeoff in high ambient temperature conditions, up to 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the rated takeoff corner point. The assumptions for this rating are no longer valid and the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” is not needed.
This withdrawal does not preclude the FAA from issuing another notice on the subject matter in the future or committing the agency to any future course of action.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions, withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing previously published special conditions for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. We are requesting the withdrawal because the “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT) is not needed.
As of June 27, 2017, the special conditions published on October 31, 2014 at 79 FR 64666, are withdrawn.
Tara Fitzgerald, ANE-112, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7130; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email
On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE) applied for a new type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. At that time, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model was to have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology described in the airworthiness standards for aircraft engines. The design feature included an additional takeoff rating for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model, named “Rated 10-Minute One Engine Inoperative Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT). It was intended to maintain the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 10 minutes with one engine inoperative (OEI).
The FAA is withdrawing Notice No. 33-014-01-SC because of concerns raised over the sufficiency of the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” special condition to meet the Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS) design requirement specified in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, section I25.5(b)(2).
The proposed takeoff rating was for use during OEI events that occur during takeoff in high ambient temperature conditions, up to 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the rated takeoff corner point. The assumptions for this rating are no longer valid and the “Rated 10-Minute OEI TOTHAT” is not needed.
This withdrawal does not preclude the FAA from issuing another notice on the subject matter in the future or committing the agency to any future course of action.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
NIST is issuing a final rule to amend the regulations governing the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to reflect the current cost sharing requirements for cooperative agreements for the establishment and operation of MEP Centers, consistent with recent amendments to the MEP authorizing statute. Under the revised statute, NIST may provide up to 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support an MEP Center. The regulations are also being amended to remove other cost sharing rules that are not required by the MEP authorizing statute or current program policies.
This rule is effective June 27, 2017.
Anne-Louise Marquis, at (301) 975-3944 or
The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of centers in each state and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. Prior to being amended by Section 501(b) of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA), Public Law 114-329, the Program statute, 15 U.S.C. 278k, required that NIST provide less than 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds of an MEP Center beginning in the fourth year of a cooperative agreement. The revised statute allows NIST to provide up to 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support an MEP Center. NIST is amending the MEP regulations, specifically 15 CFR 290.4, to implement the revised statute and to eliminate certain limitations on the amounts and sources of MEP Center cost share that are not required by 15 U.S.C. 278k and that do not reflect current MEP Program cost sharing policies.
NIST is revising 15 CFR 290.4 to ensure it is fully consistent with recent statutory changes to 15 U.S.C. 278k(e)(2) made by section 501(b) of AICA, and to ensure that the cost sharing requirements in 15 CFR 290.4 are consistent with the cost sharing requirements for financial assistance awards contained in 2 CFR part 200 and with current MEP Program cost sharing policies.
Because this final rule is a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts, 5 U.S.C. 553 does not apply.
This final rule was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Grant programs, Science and technology, Cooperative agreements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NIST is amending 15 CFR part 290 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 278k.
The Secretary may provide up to 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support an MEP Center.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the operating schedule that governs the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, mile 4.9, across the Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, California. The drawbridge has been removed from the waterway making the operating regulation no longer necessary.
This rule is effective June 27, 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 Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final 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), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.147(a), has been removed from the waterway. Therefore, the regulation is no longer necessary or applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes restrictions that have no further use or value.
We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge, mile 4.9, across the Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, California, that once required draw operation in 33 CFR 117.147(a) has been removed from the waterway. The elimination of the drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation in 33 CFR 117.147(a) that pertains to this former drawbridge.
The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.147(a), which refers to this bridge, from the CFR since the bridge is no longer crosses the waterway.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.147 by removing the restriction related to the draw operation for the Commode Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes paragraph (a) of the regulation governing this bridge. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedule that is currently designated paragraph (b), which governs the Henry Ford Avenue railroad bridge on the Cerritos Channel.
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 protesters.
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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim highway bridge no longer exists. The removal of the operating schedule from 33 CFR part 117, subpart B, will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
For reasons stated in section V.A. above this final rule would 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 calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.
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.l (series), which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) and Memorandum for the Record (MFR) are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the “Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration” on the Allegheny River, Monongahela River, and Ohio River. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life and to protect vessels from the hazards associated with the “Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration” barge fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, entry into the safety zone is prohibited for all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, line 47, will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., on July 4, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual “Three Rivers Regatta Fireworks/EQT 4th of July Celebration” barge fireworks display, listed in the regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 47 from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m., on July 4, 2017. Our Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Safety Zones, § 165.801, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Ohio River, Mile 0.0-0.5, Alleghany River, Mile 0.0-0.5, and Monongahela River, Mile 0.0-0.5. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Verdigris River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Rogers Point Park, Catoosa, OK, during a fireworks display on July 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 444.0 and mile marker 444.5 in the Verdigris River This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Memphis (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Waterways Management, Sector Lower Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4813, email
On March 20, 2017, the City of Catoosa notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017, as part of the shore side event, “Libertyfest.” The fireworks are to be
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. Although the event sponsor originally submitted notice to the Coast Guard on March 20, 2017, final details of the event and safety zone requirements were not finalized until June 2, 2017. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 1, 2017, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 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 the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with this fireworks event would be a safety concern for anyone on the Verdigris River between mile marker 444.0 and mile marker 444.5. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of life and vessels on the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Verdigris River from mile marker 444.0 to mile marker 444.5 in the vicinity of Rogers Point Park in Catoosa, OK. The safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.
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 (E.O.) 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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be prohibited from entering this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of the Lower Mississippi River for 30 minutes during the evening of Saturday, July 1, 2017. This safety zone may end early if conditions allow, as determined by the COTP or a designated representative. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone 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 (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 E.O. 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
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will 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 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 rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry into the zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative lasting 30 minutes on one half mile of the Verdigris River located just downriver of the State Route 66 Bridge in Catoosa, OK. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Any vessel desiring to enter this safety zone must first obtain permission from the COPT or a designated representative, who may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 866-777-2784.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the Carquinez Strait near Benicia, CA, in support of the City of Benicia Independence Day Fireworks Display on July 4, 2017. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of mariners and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
This rule is effective on July 4, 2017. This rule will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2017-0323. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-2001 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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.”
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. Publishing a NPRM would be impractical due to the date of the event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 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; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zone.
The City of Benicia is sponsoring a fireworks display on July 4, 2017, in Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18652. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its transit to the display location. From 5:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within 420 feet of approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83). This restricted area around the fireworks barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.
The proposed safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the barge near Benicia, CA. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its transit to the display location. From 5:30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Benicia, CA, in approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within a radius of 420 feet of approximate position 38°02′49″ N. 122°10′02″ W. (NAD 83). The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.
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 will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Local Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Local Notice to Mariners.
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
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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
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 (NEPA)(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 of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration for categorically excluded actions 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, and 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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone may contact the Patrol Commander (PATCOM) on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the subject safety zone for the Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks on the Allegheny River on July 22, 2017, to provide for the safety of persons and vessels on navigable waters during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Safety Zones in Captain of the Port Ohio Valley Zone identifies the regulated area for this regatta. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in the first table in 33 CFR 165.801, No. 46 will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 22, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Oakmont Yacht Club/Oakmont Yacht Club Fireworks listed in the regulations in the first table in 33 CFR 165.801, No. 46 from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 22, 2017. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. The safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated areas for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated areas without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for Item 5 in Table 1 of Section 165.1123.
If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for safety zones on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA for the Big Bay Boom Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 5 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated areas for the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA on Tuesday, July 4, 2017. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for Item 3 in Table 1 of Section 165.1123.
If you have questions on this publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone on the waters of Glorietta Bay, CA for the Coronado Glorietta Bay Fourth of July Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 3 of that section, from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks event. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The Library of Congress is issuing this final rule regarding license agreements and similar agreements and instruments entered into by it. The rule will prevent the Library from potentially violating the Anti-Deficiency Act and other restrictions under Federal law, preserve the Library's rights under copyright law in regard to electronic resources and software, and streamline the Library's contracting and collections acquisitions processes for these electronic resources and software.
Effective June 27, 2017.
Elizabeth A. Pugh, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20540-1050. Telephone No. (202) 707-6316.
The Librarian of Congress is authorized to make regulations with respect to the Library of Congress (2 U.S.C. 136). Since neither the
The regulation governs license agreements and similar agreements and instruments entered into by the Library of Congress. The regulation establishes terms for these agreements intended to prevent the Library from incurring obligations that would potentially violate the Anti-Deficiency Act and other restrictions imposed by Federal law, to preserve the Library's rights under U.S., foreign, and international copyright law, and to protect the Library's ability to make use of computer software and other materials it licenses. In addition, this regulation is intended to streamline the contracting and collections acquisitions processes for the Library and for licensors by enabling the Library to avoid the need to negotiate specific terms addressing these matters in each license agreement into which it enters.
Libraries, Government contracts, Government procurement.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Library of Congress amends 36 CFR part 701 as follows:
2 U.S.C. 136; 18 U.S.C. 1017.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(i) Such term is unenforceable against the Library of Congress unless otherwise expressly authorized by Federal law and specifically authorized under applicable Library of Congress regulations and procedures;
(ii) Neither the Library of Congress nor its employees shall be deemed to have agreed to such term by virtue of the term appearing in any license agreement;
(iii) Such term is stricken from the license agreement; and
(iv) The terms of the clauses of this section incorporated in the license agreement shall control.
(2) The Library of Congress is not bound by a license agreement unless it is entered into on behalf of the Library of Congress by a person having the authority to contract referred to in § 701.4.
(3) The Library of Congress is bound only by terms that are in writing and included in license agreements (including hard copy and electronic license agreements) entered into on behalf of the Library of Congress by a person having the authority to contract referred to in § 701.4.
(4) If any provisions are invoked through an “I agree” click box or other comparable mechanism (
(d)
The Library of Congress shall not be bound by any provision that may or will cause the Library of Congress or its employees to make or authorize an expenditure from, or create or authorize an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund, that would create an Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) violation. Such provisions include, for example, automatic renewal of the agreement, penalty payments by the Library of Congress, indemnification by the Library of Congress, and payment by the Library of Congress of taxes or surcharges not specifically included in the price for the license.
The liability of the Library of Congress and its obligations resulting from any breach of this agreement, or any claim arising from this agreement, shall be determined exclusively under 28 U.S.C. 1346, 28 U.S.C. 1491, or other governing Federal authority.
The conduct of, and representation of the Library of Congress in, any litigation in which the Library of Congress is a party, or is interested, are reserved exclusively to the United States Department of Justice as provided for in 28 U.S.C. 516.
This agreement shall be governed for all purposes by and construed in accordance with the Federal laws of the United States of America.
Venue for any claim under this agreement shall lie exclusively in the Federal courts of the United States, as provided in 28 U.S.C. 1346 and 28 U.S.C. 1491. Any action commenced in a State court that is against or directed to the Library of Congress may be removed by the United States Government to Federal district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1442.
The Library of Congress does not agree to submit to any form of binding alternative dispute resolution, including, without limitation, arbitration.
Notwithstanding any provision of this agreement (including any addendum, schedule, appendix, exhibit, or other attachment to or order issued under this agreement), in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this agreement and the provisions of the clauses incorporated into this agreement pursuant to 36 CFR 701.7, the provisions of the clauses incorporated pursuant to 36 CFR 701.7 shall control.
As used in this clause, “commercial computer software” has the meaning provided in 48 CFR 2.101.
The provisions of the clause regarding the license of commercial computer software set forth in 48 CFR 52.227-19 are incorporated into this agreement with the same force and effect as if set forth herein, with all necessary changes deemed to have been made, such as replacing references to the Government with references to the Library of Congress.
(e)
The Library of Congress shall not be liable for any unauthorized uses of materials licensed by the Library of Congress under this agreement by Library of Congress patrons or by unauthorized users of such materials, and any such unauthorized use shall not be deemed a material breach of this agreement.
The Library of Congress does not agree to any limitations on its rights (
Approved by:
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service announces the issuance of the
This final rule is effective on June 27, 2017. The incorporation by reference of the IMM is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 27, 2017.
Lizbeth Dobbins, (202) 268-3789.
The
Foreign relations; Incorporation by reference.
In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 20 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
(a) Section 552(a) of title 5, U.S.C., relating to the public information requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, provides in pertinent part that matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the
(b) * * *
The provisions of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Vermont regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 fine particle matter (PM
This rule is effective on July 27, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0604. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1684;
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On March 30, 2017 (82 FR 15671), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Vermont. The NPR proposed approval of infrastructure SIP submissions from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) for the 1997 PM
EPA's NPR also proposed approval of two statutes and one Executive Order submitted by Vermont in support of its demonstration that the infrastructure requirements of the CAA have been met. In addition, the NPR proposed conditional approval of certain elements of Vermont's submittals relating to PSD requirements. Finally, EPA's NPR proposed to update the classification for two of Vermont's air quality control regions for SO
Other specific requirements of infrastructure SIPs and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. One public comment was received on the NPR. However, the commenter did not mention anything specific in the NPR that we should change or provide a clear explanation based on the CAA why we should proceed any differently than as proposed. For this reason, EPA need not provide any further response. The comment is provided in the docket for this final rulemaking action.
EPA is approving SIP submissions from Vermont certifying that the state's current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 PM
In the above table, the key is as follows:
As noted in Table 1, we are conditionally approving portions of Vermont's infrastructure SIP submittals pertaining to PSD-related elements (C)(2), (D)(2), and (J)(3). In addition, EPA is removing the following provisions from Title 40 of the CFR: §§ 52.2373, 52.2374(a), and 52.2382(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5), for reasons discussed in the NPR. Although the NPR also proposed removal of 40 CFR 52.2374(b), we are not taking final action with respect to that paragraph today.
EPA is also approving and incorporating into the Vermont SIP one statute, 10 V.S.A. section 554, “Powers,” that was included in Vermont's November 2015 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO
Last, we are updating the classification at 40 CFR 52.2371 for the Champlain Valley Interstate and Vermont Intrastate air quality control regions for sulfur dioxide to Priority III, based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state, which, by operation of 40 CFR 51.152(c), relieves Vermont of the requirement to have a contingency plan for sulfur dioxide.
As noted above, EPA is conditionally approving aspects of Vermont's SIP revision submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The outstanding issues with the PSD program concern the lack of SIP-approved requirements (1) to include NO
On May 23, 2017, Vermont submitted to EPA a SIP submittal intended to address the above mentioned deficiency in the state's PSD program. EPA will evaluate this submittal in a separate action, and the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving it. If EPA disapproves the submittal, the conditionally approved aspect or aspects of Vermont's PSD program will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the revised PSD program submittal, then the portions of Vermont's infrastructure SIP submittals that were conditionally approved will be fully approved in their entirety and replace the conditional approval in the SIP. In addition, final disapproval of an infrastructure SIP submittal triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).
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 two Vermont statutes and one Vermont Executive Order as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
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, 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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 28, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(a)
(2) 1997 Ozone (NAAQS): The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on February 18, 2009, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NO
(3) 2006 PM
(4) 2008 Lead NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on July 29, 2014, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NO
(5) 2008 Ozone NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 2, 2015, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NO
(6) 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 2, 2015, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NO
(7) 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP submitted on November 2, 2015, is conditionally approved for Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) only as it relates to the aspect of the PSD program pertaining to adding NO
(b) [Reserved]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; delay of effective date.
Pursuant to notices published on January 30, 2017 and March 28, 2017, the effective date of the rule entitled “Civil Penalties,” published in the
As of June 23, 2017, the effective date of the rule amending 49 CFR part 578 published at 81 FR 95489, December 28, 2016, delayed at 82 FR 8694, January 30, 2017, further delayed at 82 FR 15302, March 28, 2017, is further delayed until July 10, 2017.
Michael Kuppersmith, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-5263.
Pursuant to notices published on January 30, 2017 and March 28, 2017, the effective date of the rule entitled “Civil Penalties,” published in the
Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 109-59, Pub. L. 114-74, Pub L. 114-94, 49 U.S.C. 32902 and 32912; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to the
Effective from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
NMFS published a final rule on June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27434) to establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the commercial fireworks displays at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) for a five-year period, 2017-2022. NMFS refers the reader to the June 15, 2017,
As published, the
1. On page 27434, in the third column, the
2. On page 27434, in the third column, under the heading, “Purpose and Need for this Regulatory Action,” the last sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“The regulations implemented by this final rule are valid from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.”
3. On page 27435, in the third column, under the heading, “Summary of Request,” the last sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“The instant regulations are valid for five years from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.”
4. On page 27436, in the first column, under the heading, “”Dates and Duration,” the first sentence is corrected to read as follows:
“The specified activity may occur from July 1 through February 28, annually, for the effective period of the regulations (June 29, 2017 through June 28, 2022).”
5. On page 27442, in the first column, the next to the last sentence is corrected and the last sentence is removed. The corrected sentence reads as follows:
“Finally, the MBNMS has informed NMFS that it does not require 30 days to prepare for implementation of the regulations and requests that this final rule take effect on or before June 29, 2017.”
Regulations in this subpart are effective from June 29, 2017, through June 28, 2022.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; Swordfish General Commercial permit retention limit inseason adjustment for the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions.
NMFS is adjusting the Swordfish (SWO) General Commercial permit retention limits for the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for July through December of the 2017 fishing year, unless otherwise later noticed. The SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in each of these regions is increased from the regulatory default limits (either two or three fish) to six swordfish per vessel per trip. The SWO
The adjusted SWO General Commercial permit retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions are effective from July 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Rick Pearson or Randy Blankinship, 727-824-5399.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
ICCAT Recommendation 13-02 set the North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) at 10,301 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (13,700 mt whole weight (ww)) through 2016. Of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. The Recommendation also included an 18.8 mt dw (25 mt ww) annual quota transfer from the United States to Mauritania and limited underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota. Thus, the United States could carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest. A new Recommendation was adopted at the 2016 ICCAT annual meeting, maintaining the provisions related to quota, the transfer to Mauritania, and the carryover limit. Absent adjustments, the codified baseline quota is 2,937 mt dw for the directed fishery in 2017, split equally (1,468.5 mt dw) between two semi-annual periods in 2017 (January through June, and July through December). We anticipate, however, that the 2017 adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota will be 3,359.4 mt dw (equivalent to the 2016 adjusted quota) when we adjust the quota. At this time, given the extent of underharvest in 2016, we anticipate again carrying over the maximum allowable 15 percent (440.6 mt dw) which, with the Mauritania transfer, would result in a final adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2017 fishing year equal to that from last year 3,359.4 mt dw (2,937.6−18.8 + 440.6 = 3,359.4 mt dw). Also as in past years, we anticipate allocating from the adjusted quota, 50 mt dw to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments and research, and 300 mt dw to the incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, per § 635.27(c)(1)(i). This would result in an allocation of 3,009.4 mt dw for the directed fishery, which would be split equally (1,504.7 mt dw) between two semi-annual periods in 2017 (January through June, and July through December).
The 2017 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and divided into two equal semi-annual quotas, began on January 1, 2017. Landings attributable to the SWO General Commercial permit are counted against the applicable semi-annual directed fishery quota. Regional default retention limits for this permit have been established and are automatically effective from January 1 through December 31 each year, unless changed based on the inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria at § 635.24(b)(4)(iv). The default retention limits established for the SWO General Commercial permit are: (1) Northwest Atlantic region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (2) Gulf of Mexico region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (3) U.S. Caribbean region—two swordfish per vessel per trip; and, (4) Florida SWO Management Area—zero swordfish per vessel per trip. The default retention limits apply to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and to HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels when fishing on non for-hire trips. As a condition of these permits, vessels may not possess, retain, or land any more swordfish than is specified for the region in which the vessel is located.
Under § 635.24(b)(4)(iii), NMFS may increase or decrease the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limit in any region within a range from zero to a maximum of six swordfish per vessel per trip. Any adjustments to the retention limits must be based upon a consideration of the relevant criteria provided in § 635.24(b)(4)(iv), which include: The usefulness of information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock; the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish; effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota; and, review of dealer reports, landing trends, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds.
Based upon these criteria, NMFS determined on December 19, 2016, (81 FR 91876) that the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit (when on a non for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels that would have otherwise automatically become effective on January 1, 2017, to six swordfish per vessel per trip for the period January 1-June 30, 2017.
NMFS has again considered these criteria as discussed below and their applicability to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in all regions for July through December of the 2017 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year, and has determined that the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit (when on a non for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels that
Among the regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments to retention limits, and given the rebuilt status of the stock and availability of quota, is the requirement that NMFS consider the “effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments.” One consideration in deciding whether to increase the retention limit, in this case, is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full North Atlantic directed swordfish quota without exceeding it based upon the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP goal to, consistent with other objectives of this FMP, “manage Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield so as to provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production, providing recreational opportunities, preserving traditional fisheries, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.” Another consideration, consistent with the FMP and its amendments, is to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors.
The regulatory criteria also require NMFS to consider the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year. In considering these criteria and their application here, NMFS examined electronic dealer reports, which provide accurate and timely monitoring of landings, and considered recent landing trends and information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock. A six swordfish per vessel per trip limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders was in effect in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for the entire 2016 fishing season as a result of actions adjusting those limits upwards in January and July (80 FR 81770 and 81 FR 38966). Even with these higher retention limits, 2016 total annual directed swordfish landings through December 31, 2016, were approximately 1,079.0 mt dw, or 32.6 percent of the 3,009.4 mt dw annual adjusted directed swordfish quota. Similarly, with higher retention limits during the first semi-annual quota period in 2017, total directed swordfish landings through April 30, 2017, are approximately 271.2 mt dw, or 20.6 percent of the 1,318.8 mt dw semi-annual baseline directed swordfish quota.
The directed swordfish quota has not been harvested for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be harvested or exceeded during 2017. This information indicates that sufficient directed swordfish quota should be available from July 1 through December 31, 2017, at the higher retention levels, within the limits of the scientifically-supported TAC and consistent with the goals of the FMP.
The regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments also require us to consider the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded. Based upon recent landings rates from dealer reports, an increase in the vessel retention limit for SWO General Commercial permit holders is not likely to cause quotas for other categories of the fishery to be exceeded as the directed category quota has been significantly underharvested in recent years and landings trends do not appear to vary significantly in 2017. Similarly, regarding the criteria that NMFS consider the effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota, NMFS expects there to be sufficient swordfish quota for 2017, and thus increased catch rates in these three regions as a result of this action would not be expected to preclude vessels in the other region (
Finally, in making adjustments to the retention limits NMFS must consider variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds. With regard to swordfish abundance, the 2016 report by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics indicated that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is not overfished (B
NMFS also has determined that the retention limit for the SWO General Commercial permit will remain at zero swordfish per vessel per trip in the Florida SWO Management Area at this time. As discussed above, NMFS considered consistency with the 2006 HMS FMP and its amendments, and the importance for NMFS to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors. As described in Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (78 FR 52012), the area off the southeastern coast of Florida, particularly the Florida Straits, contains oceanographic features that make the area biologically unique. It provides important juvenile swordfish habitat, and is essentially a narrow migratory corridor containing high concentrations of swordfish located in close proximity to high concentrations of people who may fish for them. Public comment on Amendment 8, including from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, indicated concern about the resultant high potential for the improper rapid growth of a commercial fishery, increased catches of undersized swordfish, the potential for larger numbers of fishermen in the area, and the potential for crowding of fishermen, which could lead to gear and user conflicts. These concerns remain valid. NMFS will continue to collect information to evaluate the appropriateness of the retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area and other regional retention limits. This action therefore maintains a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida Swordfish Management Area.
These adjustments are consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, ATCA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are not expected to negatively impact stock health.
Monitoring and Reporting
NMFS will continue to monitor the swordfish fishery closely during 2017 through mandatory landings and catch reports. Dealers are required to submit landing reports and negative reports (if no swordfish were purchased) on a weekly basis.
Depending upon the level of fishing effort and catch rates of swordfish, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure that available quota is not exceeded or to enhance fishing opportunities. Subsequent actions, if any, will be published in the
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to changes in swordfish landings, the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and regional variations in the fishery. Based on available swordfish quota, stock abundance, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, among other considerations, adjustment to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits from the default levels of two or three fish to six SWO per vessel per trip as discussed above is warranted, while maintaining a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the swordfish daily retention limit from the default levels would result in minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the
This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.24(b)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new Airworthiness Directive (AD), for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements. This proposed AD would require modification of the wiring for the yaw damper control system. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
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
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-38, effective December 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:
The [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-16-06, Amendment 39-17930 (79 FR 48972, August 19, 2014)] was issued on 12 August 2013 to mandate the introduction of an emergency procedure to the Aeroplane Flight Manual to address the uncommanded rudder movement.
Since the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-22, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a wiring modification for the yaw damper control system to prevent uncommanded movement of the rudder.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of Service Bulletins (SB) 604-22-007 and 605-22-002 * * * *.
This proposed AD would require modification of the wiring for the yaw damper control system. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc., issued Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016; and Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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 August 10, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913, and 5914.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Autopilot System.
This AD was prompted by reports of in-flight uncommanded rudder movements. We are issuing this AD to prevent in-flight uncommanded rudder movements, which could lead to structural failure and subsequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the wiring harness for the yaw damper control system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes having S/Ns 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.
(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 5701 through 5911 inclusive, 5913, and 5914: Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2016.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a yaw damper actuator having part number 622-9968-002, unless the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been accomplished.
This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-22-007, dated June 23, 2015.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-22-002, dated June 23, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-38, dated December 12, 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 Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-22-08, for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes: and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-22-08 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. Since we issued AD 2014-22-08, we have determined that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. The proposed AD also removes airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 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, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; 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 October 28, 2014, we issued AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-08”), for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-22-08 was prompted by a determination that more restrictive airworthiness limitations were necessary. AD 2014-22-08 requires revising the maintenance or inspection program as applicable. We issued AD 2014-22-08 to prevent a safety-significant latent failure (which is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, would result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. Since we issued AD 2014-22-08, we have determined that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0092, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the
The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), which are approved by EASA, are published in ALS Part 3.
The instructions contained in the ALS Part 3 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0148 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-22-08] to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 3 at Revision 01. The new ALS Part 3 Revision 03 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD) includes new and/or more restrictive requirements.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0148, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS.
The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3 CMR, Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015. The service information describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations, including updated inspections and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new actions (
The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, then corrective action must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.
The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.
When a TC is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.
To address this conflict, the FAA has approved AMOCs that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.
However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.
This proposed AD, therefore, would apply to the airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this AD with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-22-08, and retained in this proposed AD
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $87,720, or $85 per product.
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 August 11, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-08”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 21, 2015.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-22-08, with new terminating action. Within 30 days after December 17, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-22-08), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012, is at the applicable time specified in the Record of Revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012; or within 30 days after December 17, 2014, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2014-22-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3 CMR, Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015 (“ALS Part 3 CMR, R3”). The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R3, is at the applicable time specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R3, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-22-08 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0092, dated May 13, 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 Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support. This proposed AD would require modifying the rudder pedal adjustment system. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 11, 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, 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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0036, dated February 21, 2017 (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 C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. The MCAI states:
Failures were reported of the pedal control system support of CASA C-212 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rudder control system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-212-27-0057 to provide modification instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the rudder pedal adjustment system.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014. This service information provides instructions for modifying the rudder pedal adjustment system. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 42 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 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 August 11, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support and a determination that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rudder control system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the rudder pedal adjustment system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0036, dated February 21, 2017, 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. Information may be emailed to:
(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
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Request for information; correction.
This document corrects an error that appeared in the request for information notice published in the
This correction is effective June 26, 2017.
Chanda McNeal (301) 492-4132 or Jamaca Mitchell (301) 492-4177.
In FR Doc. 2017-12130 of June 12, 2017 (82 FR 26885), there was an error that is identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correction notice. The correction in this document is effective as if it had been included in the document published on June 12, 2017. Accordingly, the correction is effective (June 26, 2017).
On page 26886, we inadvertently included the incorrect contact information in the
In FR Doc. 2017-12130 of June 12, 2017 (82 FR 26885), make the following correction.
On page 26886, in the first column, under the
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition.
The National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition will meet to continue its study of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). The agenda will include updates and a discussion of Breastfeeding Promotion and Support activities, the WIC food packages, WIC funding, Electronic Benefits Transfer, CSFP initiatives, and current research studies.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain steel nails (steel nails) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The period of review (POR) is November 3, 2014, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective June 27, 2017.
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813.
These preliminary results are made in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel nails from Vietnam for the POR on July 5, 2016.11
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
The product covered by the
The Department is conducting this CVD review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner) withdrew its requests for review of Astrotech Steels Private Limited; Blue Moon Logistics Private Ltd.; Bollore Logistics Vietnam Co. Ltd.; Dahnay Logistics Private Ltd; FGS Logistics Co. Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Ltd; SDV Vietnam Co. Ltd.; and United Nail Products Co. Ltd. No other party requested a review of these producers/exporters.
As explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, there is no evidence that Dicha Sombrilla Co., Ltd. had a Type 3 (
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily assigned subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs, in the amounts shown above, for each of the respective companies shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
For the non-reviewed firms for which we are rescinding this administrative review, the Department intends to instruct CBP 15 days after publication of these preliminary results of review to assess CVDs at rates equal to the rates of cash deposits for estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, during the period November 3, 2014, through December 31, 2015, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective June 20, 2017.
Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (the People's Republic of China (the PRC)), Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-0989 (India), Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)), Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 (Taiwan), and Mike Heaney at (202) 482-4475 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, filed in proper form on behalf of DAK Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, and Auriga Polymers Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).
On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing fine denier PSF in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for all investigations except the PRC and Vietnam, is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. Because the PRC and Vietnam are non-market economy (NME) countries, the POI for these investigations is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of fine denier PSF to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe fine denier PSF, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 10, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 20, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting that the Department initiate.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, the petitioners based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values (AUVs) of publicly available import data.
For India, Korea, and Taiwan, the petitioners provided home market price information for fine denier PSF produced in, and offered for sale in, each of these countries that was obtained through market research.
For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners also provided information that sales of fine denier PSF in the respective home markets were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). With respect to Korea, the petitioners calculated NV based on home market prices and constructed value (CV).
With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners stated that the Department has found these countries to be NME countries in prior administrative proceedings in which they were involved.
The petitioners claim that Mexico is an appropriate surrogate country for the PRC, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Mexico is available to value all material input factors.
The petitioners claim that India is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from India is available to value all material input factors.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by the PRC and Vietnamese producers/exporters is not available, the petitioners relied on the production experience of a domestic producer of fine denier PSF in the United States as an estimate of Chinese and Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioners calculated the COM based on the input factors of production and usage rates from a U.S. producer of fine denier PSF. The input factors of production were valued using publicly available data on costs specific to Korea and Taiwan.
For Korea and Taiwan, because certain home market prices fell below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of the Act, as noted above, the petitioners calculated NVs based on CV.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for fine denier PSF for each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) PRC—88.07 to 103.06 percent;
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.
The petitioners named 12 companies in India,
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of this notice, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information.
With respect to the PRC and Vietnam, the petitioners named, respectively, seven and four producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of fine denier PSF to the United States from the PRC and Vietanm.
Producers/exporters of fine denier PSF from the PRC and Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 5, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fine denier PSF from the PRC, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective June 20, 2017.
Trisha Tran at (202) 482-4852 (India); Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813 and Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698 (the People's Republic of China), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the
On June 5, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petitions.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Governments of India and the PRC are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC, respectively, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing fine denier PSF in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on May 31, 2017, the period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The product covered by these investigations is fine denier PSF from India and the PRC. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the Department
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that fine denier PSF, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own production of the domestic like product in 2016.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they
Because the PRC and India are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC and India materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; decreased production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; and declines in financial performance.
Based on the examination of the CVD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the governments of these countries. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 36 of the 38 alleged programs in India. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on all 20 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
The petitioners named 12 and 89 companies as producers/exporters of fine denier PSF in India and the PRC, respectively.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of these investigations. Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for initial comments.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m.ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of this notice, we intend to make our decisions regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of fine denier PSF from India and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by these investigations is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3. decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 22, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from the People's
Effective June 27, 2017.
Krisha Hill and Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-2769, respectively.
On December 22, 2016, the Department published in the
The merchandise covered by the order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
In the
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,
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
For merchandise whose sale/entry was not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (
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 of this notice in the
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these Final Results within five days of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice of the Final Results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published 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).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 1412, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Mr. Jonathan Chesebro, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-1297; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
1. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. §§ (10)(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) as information will be disclosed that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions were it to be disclosed prematurely (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B)) and as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential information will be disclosed. (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).
1. Public comment period. Public attendance is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Jonathan Chesebro at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 7, 2017 in order to pre-register. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 60 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Chesebro and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 7, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 7, 2017. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC's) Demersal Committee will hold a public meeting, jointly with a subset of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board (Board).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Baltimore BWI Airport Hotel, 1739 W. Nursery Rd., Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 694-0808.
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Demersal Committee and members of the Board will meet to review and
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
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.
Sea turtles can become accidentally entangled in active or discarded fishing gear, marine debris, or other line in the marine environment. Entanglement has the potential to cause serious injury or mortality, which would negatively impact the recovery of endangered and threatened sea turtle populations. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established the Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network (STDN) to respond to these entanglement events, in particular those involving the vertical line of fixed gear fisheries. The STDN's goals are to increase reporting, to reduce serious injury and mortality to sea turtles, and to collect information that can be used for mitigation of these threats. As there is limited observer coverage of fixed gear fisheries, the STDN data are invaluable to NMFS in understanding the threat of entanglement and working towards mitigation.
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to the Columbus Zoo Park Association, Inc., 9990 Riverside Drive, P.O. Box 400, Powell, OH 43065-0400 [Greg Bell, Responsible Official] to import seven California sea lions (
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Jennifer Skidmore or Courtney Smith, (301) 427-8401.
On April 7, 2017, notice was published in the
The permit authorizes the importation of seven captive-born California sea lions from Changfeng Ocean World in Shanghai City, China to the Columbus Zoo satellite facility in Myakka City, FL for the purpose of public display. The permit expires on June 9, 2022.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
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
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 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 Megan Mackey, (907) 586-7228.
This request is for an extension of an approved information collection.
The prohibited species donation (PSD) program for salmon and halibut has effectively reduced regulatory discard of salmon and halibut by allowing fish that would otherwise be discarded to be donated to needy individuals through tax-exempt organizations. Vessels and processing plants participating in the PSD program voluntarily retain and process salmon and halibut bycatch. An authorized, tax-exempt distributor, chosen by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is responsible for monitoring retention and processing of fish donated by vessels and processors. The authorized distributor also coordinates processing, storage, transportation, and distribution of salmon and halibut. The PSD program requires an information collection so that NMFS can monitor the authorized distributors' ability to effectively supervise program participants and ensure that donated fish are properly processed, stored, and distributed.
Respondents submit their application to become an authorized distributor by email (with attachments) or U.S. mail in the form of a letter.
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 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; response to comments.
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has considered public comments for revisions of the 2016 marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs). This notice announces the availability of the final 2016 SARs for the 86 stocks that were updated.
Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address:
A list of references cited in this notice is available at
Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402,
Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific independent Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information.
NMFS updated SARs for 2016, and the revised draft reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (81 FR 70097, October 11, 2016). Subsequent to soliciting public comment on the draft 2016 SARs, NMFS was made aware that due to technical conversion errors, the Atlantic SARs contained incorrect information in some instances. NMFS
NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2016 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission; six non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Maine Lobstermen's Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, and Friends of the Children's Pool); and three individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2016 SARs.
See our responses to comments on Regional Reports below where we address issues related to specific stocks.
In the North Pacific, the SPLASH (Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Humpbacks) surveys conducted during 2004 through 2006, represent one of the largest and most successful international collaborative studies of any whale population to date. SPLASH was designed to determine the abundance, trends, movements, and population structure of humpback whales throughout the North Pacific and to examine human impacts on this population. This study involved over 50 research groups and more than 400 researchers in 10 countries. It was supported by a number of U.S. agencies and organizations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation with additional support from a number of other organizations and governments for effort in specific regions.
The only current international assessment survey in the North Pacific is the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Pacific Ocean Whales & Ecosystem Research (POWER) cruise, which runs annually and sequentially surveys set areas of the North Pacific. These cruises have been run for several years across much of the North Pacific Ocean and in 2017-19 will be focused on the Bering Sea. The survey always includes at least one U.S. researcher. Reports and data are submitted annually to the IWC Scientific Committee. The survey employs line-transect methods and is designed to calculate abundance of all large whale species. Whether the estimates possess sufficient precision to be used for calculating PBR is likely to vary by species, and the huge areas being surveyed may in some cases mean low precision. The surveys also take time for photo-id and biopsy sampling, and in 2017 they will for the first time include acoustic monitoring via sonobuoys.
With the exception of the POWER cruise (which is possible largely because of funding and the provision of a vessel by the Government of Japan, together with support from the IWC) the challenge of implementing the Commission's recommendation is the considerable expense involved in conducting trans-boundary surveys. The SPLASH project on North Pacific humpback whales was very successful but involved funding by multiple nations (including the U.S.). Given the current budget environment, it is unlikely that funding would be available for an assessment survey of similar international scope.
Regarding the management of human impacts on trans-boundary stocks using a PBR level calculated for the entire stock, we note that we included clarifications in the 2016 revised Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS). For transboundary stocks, the best approach is to compare the total (U.S. and non-U.S.) M/SI to the range-wide PBR whenever possible. For non-migratory stocks where estimates of mortality or abundance from outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) cannot be determined, PBR calcuations are based on the abundance within the EEZ and compared to mortality within the EEZ. For cases where we are able to estimate the entire population size, such as the transboundary Californa coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins, we prorate the PBR to account for the time that animals spend outside of U.S. waters.
For example, the Organizations note the lack of population data available for the small stocks of Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary (BSE) bottlenose dolphins—many of which were adversely impacted by the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon well. As a result of aging data and lack of survey effort, population estimates are now only available for 3 of the more than 30 bay, sound and estuarine stocks whereas there were estimates for 6 in the last SAR. The Organizations recommend that new population estimates be generated.
Between 1990 and 2000, the per capita birth rate was substantially higher than the long-term mean in three (27 percent) of those years, close to the mean in two (18 percent) of the years, and substantially lower in six (55 percent) of the years. In contrast, between 2001 and 2012, the rate was substantially higher in four (33 percent) of those years, close to the mean in 6 (50 percent) of the years, and substantially lower in just one (17 percent) of the years. In other words, the mean rate increased substantially from the first to the second period. In addition, one study has pointed to a substantial decline in the birth rate from 2010 on, which coincides with an apparent decline in the population growth rate (Kraus et al. 2016). Those declines have been coincident with sharp declines in right whale numbers at several major feeding habitats, an increase in the occurrence in severe entanglement injuries (Knowlton et al. 2012, Robbins et al. 2015), and declines in animal health-based assessments of blubber thickness, skin lesions, and other health assessment parameters (Rolland et al. 2016). The Commission recommends that NMFS undertake a thorough statistical/modeling analysis of these data to determine whether any of these apparent/possible trends are significant and what effect they are having on the recovery of the stock.
Regarding whale #1311, this whale was an unrecovered carcass filmed floating off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, by a fisherman in August 2013. Line was caught in the baleen, and it had rostrum and head wounds apparently due to line wraps. Staff reviewing the injuries were unable to determine the extent of human interaction from footage provided. The event did not meet any of the four entanglement mortality criteria as listed in NMFS M/SI documents (Henry et al. 2016), was classified as a mortality due to unknown cause, and was not included in the SAR as a human-caused mortality.
We have no data on the unidentified whale described as being sighted in September 2014 by an aerial survey team in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, and none was provided upon request from commenters. Therefore, this event was not included in Table 1. It could be a resight of an animal with an earlier injury date.
This problem is further exacerbated by the new methodologies used to count serious injury and mortality: Whales with unknown outcomes are now counted on a pro‐rated basis. Given the critical status of the species, it is imperative that NMFS develop a new method of assessing the right whale population that does not rely solely on sightings and photo‐identification of these whales. The MLA recommends that NMFS convene a workshop of independent scientists to review the best available science and potential modelling approaches to assess this stock. This task should not be delegated to Science Center staff but rather should involve scientists from a variety of marine mammal, modelling, climate change and other fields to objectively recommend the best approach to assessing North American right whales.
With regard to the suggestions for a workshop, we are working on an approach very much like the one suggested by the commenter. Discussions will likely build on the findings from the North Atlantic right whale panel at the Commission's 2017 annual meeting and the outcomes from the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team meeting. Both meetings were held in April 2017.
Gray seals are also being entangled and data are kept on stranding response, including either documenting or freeing animals entangled in fishing gear. IFAW documented that, between 2000-2010, “305 gray seals were reported stranded, among them 22 percent (n=68) were HI, and 75 percent of those (n=51) were fisheries related.” Moreover, the authors noted that, with regard to the various seal species to which IFAW responded: “In the instances of fisheries-related HI, 67 percent had gear presently on the animal at the time of stranding. 72 percent of the entanglements were of monofilament of varying mesh size. 15 percent were multifilament netting, 9 percent were pot/trap gear, and 4 percent were random (mooring lines, dock gear). Most entangled animals were juveniles and sub-adults, which might indicate that the entanglements are lethal to animals, preventing them from reaching adult size.” It would seem worth adding a section to the SAR to discuss entanglements noted in living or dead-stranded animals.
Further, assessments of pelagic false killer whale population trend are inappropriate for several reasons: (1) The entire stock range is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, such that the available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size; (2) there have been only 2 surveys of the entire Hawaii EEZ, an insufficient number to appropriately assess trend; and (3) the available survey data were collected with different protocols for assessing false killer whale group size, a factor that will significantly impact the resulting abundance estimates. A robust assessment of population trend will require additional data and inclusion of environmental variables that influence false killer whale distribution and the proportion of the population represented within the survey area during each survey period.
Second, as NMFS recognized in the draft 2015 SAR, the range for the insular stock is, appropriately, much smaller than was previously assumed by NMFS. When this new range is taken into account, along with the FKWTRP-based year-round closure of the area to the north of the MHI, there is only a very small area in which longline fishing may overlap with the assumed range of the insular stock. No false killer whale interaction by the deep-set fishery has ever occurred in this area. It is therefore incorrect, and contrary to the best available information, to state that the deep-set fishery, as currently regulated, is “interacting with” the insular stock. If NMFS persists with its contention that the deep-set fishery “interacts with” the insular stock, then NMFS should, at a minimum, state in the SAR that there are no confirmed deep-set fishery interactions with the insular stock and that no deep-set fishery interactions with the insular stock have occurred in the very limited area where longline effort might overlap with the assumed range for the insular stock.
During the cruises, we also obtained photographs of harbor porpoise and collected acoustic samples from Dall's porpoise (to compare to our existing harbor porpoise acoustic samples) for a project to determine if Dall's porpoise and harbor porpoise can be differentiated acoustically. We anticipate that the results of these analyses will help inform whether separation of Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise into two or more stocks is appropriate.
Because of distribution of effort, it may not be possible to extrapolate the observed takes from these districts across the fishery in its entire range in southeast Alaska; however, it is clear that total M/SI is likely to be far higher than the limited data presented. The SAR lists mortality as 11 humpbacks. However, a draft report by the same author (Manly) extrapolated from this and estimated the number of mortalities for all of Southeast Alaska to be 68. Given the inadequate monitoring of the fisheries, NMFS must explain why observed M/SI were not extrapolated to the fishery in Southeast Alaska as was done by Manly in his draft and as would be consistent with fisheries listed in the annual List of Fisheries.
The extrapolation of humpback whale M/SI from 11 in the observed districts of the Southeast Alaska salmon drift gillnet fishery to 68 for all of Southeast Alaska was contained in a draft report but not carried over into the final report. During our review of the report, and consideration of what information to include in the SARs, we decided that
Response: We have added the following statement to the end of the “Status of Stock” section in the final 2016 Central North Pacific humpback whale SAR: “Humpback whale mortality and serious injury in Hawaii-based fisheries involves whales from the Hawaii DPS; this DPS is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.”
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a 5-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the agenda under
The meetings will be held on July 10-14, 2017.
The meeting will be held at the Council Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903; telephone: (787) 766-5926.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments/modifications.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities:
RIN 0648-XA874; Permit No. 15240-01: NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818 (Responsible Party: Frank A. Parrish, Ph.D.);
RIN 0648-XA172; Permit No. 15453-01: Waikiki Aquarium, 2777 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815 (Andrew Rossiter, Ph.D., Responsible Party);
RIN 0648-XA626; Permit No. 15569-01: The Center for Whale Research (CWR; Kenneth C. Balcomb III, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 1577, Friday Harbor, WA 98250;
RIN 0648-XA626; Permit No. 16160-02: The Whale Museum (Jenny Atkinson, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 945, Friday Harbor, WA 98250;
RIN 0648-XA626; Permit No. 16163-03: NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC; M. Bradley Hanson, Ph.D., Responsible Party) 2725 Montlake Blvd.
RIN 0648-XA84; Permit No. 16479-04: Pacific Whale Foundation (Gregory D. Kaufman, Responsible Party), 300 Maalaea Road, Suite 211, Wailuku, HI 96793;
RIN 0648-XF213; Permit No. 16609: Zoological Society of San Diego (Douglas Myers, Responsible Party), P.O. Box 120551, San Diego, CA 92112;
RIN 0648-XB005; Permit No. 17086-01: Robin Baird, Ph.D., Cascadia Research, 218
RIN 0648-XC644; Permit No. 18016-01: Tamara McGuire, Ph.D., LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 2000 W. International Airport Rd, Suite C1, Anchorage, AK 99502;
RIN 0648-XD224; Permit No. 18537-02: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Michael J. Rehberg, Responsible Party), 525 W. 67th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99518;
RIN 0648-XD824; Permit No. 18890-01: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Lori Quakenbush, Responsible Party), 525 W. 67th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99518;
RIN 0648-XF158; Permit No. 19508: Katherine Mansfield, Ph.D., University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Building 20, BIO301, Orlando, FL 32825;
RIN 0648-XE204; Permit No. 19621-01: Michael Arendt, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division, 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412;
RIN 0648-XE517; Permit No. 19697: Carlos E. Diez, Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales de Puerto Rico, Programa de Especies Protegidas, P.O. Box 366147, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00936;
RIN 0648-XF148; Permit No. 20294: Robert DiGiovanni, Jr., Chief Scientist, Atlantic Marine Conservation Society (P.O. Box 932, Hampton Bays, New York, 11946;
RIN 0648-XE788; Permit No. 20339: NMFS Southeast Fisheries Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive,
RIN 0648-XE938; Permit No. 20430: James Harvey, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA, 95039;
RIN 0648-XF603; Permit No. 20455: Randall Wells, Ph.D., Chicago Zoological Society's Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, c/o Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236;
RIN 0648-XF149; Permit No. 20465: NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-6349 (Responsible Party: Dr. John Bengtson);
RIN 0648-XF082; Permit No. 20527: Ann Pabst, Ph.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington, Biology and Marine Biology, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403;
RIN 0648-XF213; Permit No. 20646: Morgridge Institute for Research [James Thomson, Ph.D., Responsible Party], 330 N. Orchard St., Madison, WI 53715;
RIN 0648-XF154; Permit No. 20993: Christopher Cilfone, Be Blue, 2569 Douglas Hwy. Unit 1, Juneau, AK 99801;
RIN 0648-XF214; Permit No. 21026: Dorian Houser, Ph.D., National Marine Mammal Foundation, 22400 Shelter Island Drive #200, San Diego, CA 92106;
RIN 0648-XF271; Permit No. 21043: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 585 Prineville Street, Port Charlotte, FL 33954;
RIN 0648-XF267; Permit No. 21155: Karina Amaral, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Zoology Department, Avenida Bento Goncalves, 9500 Build 43435, Room 206, Porto Alegre, MI, 91.501-970, Brazil;
RIN 0648-XF352; Permit No. 21199: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Natural History Unit, BBC Bristol, Whiteladies Road, United Kingdom BS8 2LR, (Responsible Party: Vanessa Coates).
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Shasta McClenahan (File Nos. 16160-02, 16163-03, 16609, 17086-01, 20430, 20455, 20465, 20527, 20646, and 21026), Amy Hapeman (File Nos. 16160-02, 16163-03, 18016-01, 19508, 19621-01, 19697, 20339, 20430, 20455, and 20465), Carrie Hubard (File Nos. 15240-01, 17086, 19508, 20993, 20527, 21026, 21155, and 21199), Jennifer Skidmore (File Nos. 21155, 15453-01, 16609, and 20646), Courtney Smith (File Nos. 16479-04, 18537-02, 18890-01, and 20294), Malcolm Mohead (File Nos. 19621-01 and 21043), Sara Young (File No. 15240-01, 18016-01 and 21199), and Erin Markin (File Nos. 19697 and 20339) at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Rome, New York, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent to issue a partially exclusive patent license.
The Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Mentis Technologies, having a place of business at 725 Daedalian Drive, Rome, New York 13440, a partially exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent No. 9,349,007 issued on May 24, 2016 and entitled “WEB MALWARE BLOCKING THROUGH PARALLEL RESOURCE RENDERING”, having been filed on May 29, 2014 as U.S. Patent Application No. 14/290,175.
An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.
Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent 7,956,086, issued June 7, 2011, entitled, “Methods for the Formulation and Manufacture of Artesunic Acid for Injection” to Amivas, LLC, having its principal place of business at 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 630, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012.
For licensing issues, Mr. Barry Datlof, Office of Research & Technology Applications, (301) 619-0033. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
Anyone wishing to object to grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) regulations implementing the Government in the Sunshine Act, notice is hereby given of the Board's closed meeting described below.
10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m., July 18, 2017.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004.
Glenn Sklar, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
The meeting will be closed to the public. No
Closed. During the closed meeting, the Board Members will discuss issues dealing with potential Recommendations to the Secretary of Energy. The Board is invoking the exemptions to close a meeting described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) and (9)(B) and 10 CFR 1704.4(c) and (h). The Board has determined that it is necessary to close the meeting since conducting an open meeting is likely to disclose matters that are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, and/or be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. In this case, the deliberations will pertain to potential Board Recommendations which, under 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b) and (h)(3), may not be made publicly available until after they have been received by the Secretary of Energy or the President, respectively.
The meeting will proceed in accordance with the closed meeting agenda which is posted on the Board's public Web site at
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces deadline dates for the receipt of documents and other information from applicants and institutions participating in certain Federal student aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), for the 2017-2018 award year. These programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Education (Department), provide financial assistance to students attending eligible postsecondary educational institutions to help them pay their educational costs.
The Federal student aid programs (title IV, HEA programs) covered by this deadline date notice are the Pell Grant, Direct Loan, TEACH Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, and campus-based programs (FSEOG, FWS, and Perkins Loan programs). The campus-based programs are only covered by Table A of this deadline date notice.
Rene Tiongquico, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE., Union Center Plaza, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-5345. Telephone: (202) 377-4270 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Table A provides information and deadline dates for receipt of the FAFSA, corrections to and signatures for the FAFSA, ISIRs, and SARs, and verification documents.
The deadline date for the receipt of a FAFSA by the Department's Central Processing System is June 30, 2018, regardless of the method that the applicant uses to submit the FAFSA. The deadline date for the receipt of a signature page for the FAFSA (if required), corrections, notices of change of address or school, or requests for a duplicate SAR is September 15, 2018.
For all title IV, HEA programs, an ISIR or SAR for the student must be received by the institution no later than the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018, whichever is earlier. Note that a FAFSA must be submitted and an ISIR or SAR received for the dependent student for whom a parent is applying for a Direct PLUS Loan.
Except for students selected for Verification Tracking Groups V4 and V5, verification documents must be received by the institution no later than 120 days after the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018, whichever is earlier. For students selected for Verification Tracking Groups V4 and V5, institutions must submit identity and high school completion status verification results no later than 60 days following the institution's first request to the student to submit the documentation.
For all title IV, HEA programs except for (1) Direct PLUS Loans that will be made to parent borrowers, and (2) Direct Unsubsidized Loans that will be made to dependent students who have been determined by the institution, pursuant to section 479A(a) of the HEA, to be eligible for such a loan without providing parental information on the FAFSA, the ISIR or SAR must have an official expected family contribution (EFC) and the ISIR or SAR must be received by the institution no later than the earlier of the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018.
For a student who is requesting aid through the Pell Grant, FSEOG, FWS, and Federal Perkins Loan programs or for a student requesting Direct Subsidized Loans, who does not meet the conditions for a late disbursement under 34 CFR 668.164(j), a valid ISIR or valid SAR must be received by the institution by the student's last date of enrollment for the 2017-2018 award year or September 22, 2018, whichever is earlier.
In accordance with 34 CFR 668.164(j)(4)(i), an institution may not make a late disbursement of title IV, HEA program funds later than 180 days after the date of the institution's determination that the student was no longer enrolled. Table A provides that, to make a late disbursement of title IV student assistance funds, an institution must receive a valid ISIR or valid SAR no later than 180 days after its
Table B provides the earliest disbursement date and the earliest and latest dates for institutions to submit Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant disbursement records to the Department's Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System and deadline dates for such records if an institution requests and receives approval to submit such records after the established deadline.
An institution must submit Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant disbursement records to COD, no later than 15 days after making the disbursement or becoming aware of the need to adjust a previously reported disbursement. In accordance with 34 CFR 668.164(a), title IV, HEA program funds are disbursed on the date that the institution: (a) Credits those funds to a student's account in the institution's general ledger or any subledger of the general ledger; or (b) pays those funds to a student directly. Title IV, HEA program funds are disbursed even if an institution uses its own funds in advance of receiving program funds from the Department.
An institution's failure to submit disbursement records within the required timeframe may result in the Department rejecting all or part of the reported disbursement. Such failure may also result in an audit or program review finding or the initiation of an adverse action, such as a fine or other penalty for such failure, in accordance with subpart G of the General Provisions regulations in 34 CFR part 668.
In accordance with 34 CFR 674.19(f), 34 CFR 682.610(c), 34 CFR 685.309(b), and 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2), upon receipt of an enrollment report from the Secretary, institutions must update all information included in the report and return the report to the Secretary in a manner and format prescribed by the Secretary and within the timeframe prescribed by the Secretary. Consistent with the
We publish a detailed discussion of the Federal student aid application process in the 2017-2018
Additional information on the institutional reporting requirements for the Pell Grant, Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, Direct Loan, and TEACH Grant programs is included in the 2017-2018
You may access these publications by selecting the “iLibrary” link at the Information for Financial Aid Professionals Web site at:
(1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668.
(2) Federal Pell Grant Program, 34 CFR part 690.
(3) William D. Ford Direct Loan Program, 34 CFR part 685.
(4) Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program, 34 CFR part 686.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1070a, 1070a-1, 1070b-1070b-4, 1070g, 1070h, 1087a-1087j, and 1087aa-1087ii; 42 U.S.C. 2751-2756b.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Acting Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program on or after July 1, 2017, but before July 1, 2018. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.268.
This notice is effective June 27, 2017.
Rene Tiongquico, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 377-4270 or by email:
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.
Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers for loans made under the Direct Loan Program including: Federal Direct Subsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans); Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans); Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans); and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans).
Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans (collectively, Direct Loans) first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013, have a fixed interest rate that is calculated based on the high yield of the 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage (a “margin”). While the interest rate determination for new loans will be different from year to year, each of these loans will have a fixed interest rate for
The following chart contains specific information on the calculation of the interest rates for Direct Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2017, but before July 1, 2018. We will publish a separate notice containing the interest rates for Direct Loans that were made in prior years.
For an application for a Direct Consolidation Loan that was received by the Department on or after July 1, 2013, the interest rate on that loan is the weighted average of the loans being consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of changes to the public notification procedures for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is notifying the public of changes to the public notification procedures for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project, including implementation of the Programmatic Agreement developed for the Project.
DOE is changing the public notification procedures for consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act for the Northern Pass Transmission Line Project effective June 14, 2017.
Requests for information about the proposed project and DOE's Section 106 review should be addressed to: Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; or by email to
For information on DOE's review of the Presidential permit application, contact Brian Mills by one of the methods listed in
Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that before an electric transmission facility may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border, a Presidential permit must be issued by DOE. E.O. 10485 provides that DOE may issue a Presidential permit upon finding issuance of the permit to be consistent with the public interest and after obtaining favorable recommendations from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. In determining whether issuance of a Presidential permit would be consistent with the public interest, DOE takes into account the potential effects of the issuance of a Presidential permit for the proposed project's international border crossing on historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) an opportunity to comment, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (54 United States Code (U.S.C.) 306108) (Section 106), as amended, and the Section 106 implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800).
On October 14, 2010, NPT applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line across the U.S.-Canada border (the proposed Project). On July 1, 2013, NPT submitted an amended Presidential permit application to DOE (see 78 FR 50405 (Aug. 19, 2013)). On August 31, 2015, NPT further amended its Presidential permit application to DOE (see 80 FR
In the July 2013 amended application, NPT proposed to construct and operate a primarily overhead high voltage direct current (HVDC) electric transmission line that would originate at an HVDC converter station to be constructed at the Des Cantons Substation in Québec, Canada, then would be converted from HVDC to alternating current (AC) in Franklin, NH, and would continue to its southern terminus in Deerfield, NH. The proposed facilities would be capable of transmitting up to 1200 megawatts (MW) of power.
The New Hampshire portion of the proposed Project would be a single circuit 300 kilovolt (kV) HVDC transmission line running approximately 153 miles from the U.S. border crossing with Canada near the community of Pittsburg, NH, to a new HVDC-to-AC transformer facility to be constructed in Franklin, NH. From Franklin, NH, to the Project terminus at the Public Service Company of New Hampshire's existing Deerfield Substation located in Deerfield, NH, the proposed Project would consist of 34 miles of 345-kV AC electric transmission line. The total length of the proposed Project would be approximately 187 miles.
NPT's August 2015 application amendment (80 FR 58725) changed the proposed transmission line route by adding three miles of buried transmission line adjacent to a road not previously analyzed, adding two new transition stations (one in Bridgewater and one in Bethlehem; both would transition the transmission line between aboveground and buried) of approximately one acre each, and increasing the amount of proposed buried transmission line from approximately eight miles to approximately 60 miles with a total proposed Project length of approximately 192 miles. In addition, the amendment proposed a minor shift (less than 100 feet) in the international border crossing location, changed the project size from 1,200 MW to 1,000 MW with a potential transfer capability of 1,090 MW and included other design changes (
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings that require federal funding, approvals, or permits on historic properties and to give the ACHP and SHPOs an opportunity to comment. Compliance with Section 106 also requires consultation with other consulting parties, which may include federally-recognized Indian tribes, representatives of local governments, the applicant, certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the proposed undertaking due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking's effects on historic properties (36 CFR 800.2). The public is also a participant in the Section 106 process, and federal agencies must also seek and consider the views of the public (36 CFR 800.2(d)). If adverse effects on historic properties are anticipated, agencies develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those adverse effects through consultation.
DOE initiated Section 106 consultation with the NH SHPO—the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources—in February 2011 in response to NPT's 2010 Presidential permit application. DOE suspended its Section 106 consultation following notification from NPT that NPT would be submitting an amended Presidential permit application. DOE re-engaged the NH SHPO in 2013 to continue Section 106 consultation on NPT's amended Presidential permit application submission; through consultation with the NH SHPO and other consulting federal agencies, DOE defined the area of potential effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.16(d)) and identified potential additional consulting parties (36 CFR 800.2). The ACHP was invited to participate in DOE's Section 106 consultation in January 2014; ACHP formally joined DOE's Section 106 consultation in February 2015. Additional consulting parties (36 CFR 800.2) were invited to participate in DOE's Section 106 consultation in January 2014. DOE initiated consultation with the VT SHPO—the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation—in June 2016 to address the portion of the APE within Vermont.
When the potential effects on historic properties are complex, involve large land areas, and cannot be fully determined prior to approval of an undertaking, an agency's obligations under Section 106 are satisfied by negotiation and execution of a legally binding agreement called a Programmatic Agreement or PA. DOE has developed a draft PA through which it proposes to satisfy the Section 106 requirements for the proposed Northern Pass project. All information for the public regarding the Section 106 process are available at DOE's Section 106 Consultation Page for the proposed Northern Pass Transmission Line Project:
The Section 106 implementing regulations provide for specific public involvement opportunities in the Section 106 process. The level of public involvement is determined on a project-by-project basis by the federal agency implementing Section 106. DOE previously indicated that it would notify the public about the Section 106 process through future
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Bayshore Solar B, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 11, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
As announced in the Notices issued May 10, 2017,
This Supplemental Notice contains the following changes to the previously-issued technical conference agenda: (1) Edward Fortunato, Managing Director of Analytics for Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation is not participating as a panelist on Panels 1 and 2 of the technical conference and; (2) Gregg Bradley, Supervisor of Market Compliance for the Internal Market Monitor, ISO New England Inc. will be a panelist on Panel 2 of the technical conference. Christopher Hamlen, Regulatory Counsel, ISO-NE, is not participating as a panelist.
In addition, please take note that the Commission will accept post technical conference comments up to 30 days after the technical conference. Please file any comments with the Commission by July 31, 2017.
If they have not already done so, those who plan to attend the technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the registration form located at:
The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available from Ace Reporting Company and may be purchased online at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the technical conference, please contact:
The purpose of the staff-led Technical Conference on Developments in Natural Gas Index Liquidity and Transparency is to solicit feedback and develop a record regarding index robustness and to discuss what, if anything, the industry and/or the Commission could do to increase transparency and support greater robustness in natural gas price formation. The technical conference will examine: (1) The current state of natural gas index liquidity and voluntary reporting to index developers; (2) the use of natural gas indices over time; and (3) possible actions that the industry and/or the Commission could take to increase transparency and support greater robustness in natural gas price formation.
Staff will present an overview of natural gas transactions using FERC Form No. 552 data. The presentation will review trends in next-day and next-month transactions, the number of companies that report to index developers, and the volume of fixed-priced transactions that contribute to natural gas indices. Staff will also present an overview of natural gas indices referenced in jurisdictional tariffs.
Most price indices are supplied as a commercial service by publishers of daily, weekly, or monthly newsletters. Price indices play a pivotal role in natural gas market price formation, and are commonly referenced in physical and financial transactions. This panel will examine the robustness and liquidity of natural gas indices, the degree of industry reliance on index-based contracts rather than fixed-price contracts, the decline in fixed-price reporting to index developers, and whether natural gas indices accurately reflect market conditions.
Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:
1. Describe the current trends in natural gas fixed-price and physical basis trading that you believe positively or negatively impact price formation in the natural gas market, detailing any observable shifts in liquidity. Are there differences in market fundamentals, procedures, or policies which disproportionately impact either overall or regional liquidity?
2. How have the volume and quality of next-day and next-month fixed-price and physical basis transaction reporting changed? In addition, describe any changes in other information used to form natural gas indices. Are there market, regulatory, or other factors that discourage reporting? If so, are there ways to incent reporting?
3. For indices published by index developers and referenced in FERC jurisdictional tariffs, the Commission requires index developers to comply with five standards: (1) Code of conduct and confidentiality; (2) completeness; (3) data verification, error correction, and monitoring; (4) verifiability; and (5) availability and accessibility.
4. Is there a need for additional transparency regarding natural gas index price assessments and the level of liquidity underlying each natural gas index published by index developers? Should common minimum liquidity thresholds be defined? If so, who should define them, and what should be the mechanism for accomplishing this? For example, should index developers provide information about which indices are illiquid? What kind of coordination would be necessary, and what kind of information would be shared, and with whom, when a given natural gas price index is deemed illiquid?
Natural gas indices are used by industry for a variety of purposes, such as settling bilateral contracts of varying terms, basis swap futures, index swap futures, swing swap futures, and calendar and basis spreads. Natural gas indices also are used in FERC jurisdictional interstate natural gas pipeline and wholesale electric transmission tariffs for various purposes. For example, indices are used in many interstate natural gas pipeline tariffs to settle imbalances or determine penalties. In addition, State Commissions use indices as benchmarks in reviewing the prudence of natural gas purchases by local distribution companies. Finally, some Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs) rely on natural gas indices to develop reference levels for market power mitigation. Given the prevalence of indices in the natural gas and electric industries, indices must be robust and have the confidence of market participants for such markets to function properly and efficiently.
Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:
1. Describe current industry uses of physical natural gas price indices. Are natural gas price indices sufficiently reflecting the locational value of natural gas to permit decision-making by those with an interest in the value of natural gas such as: End users, producers, marketers, and other buyers and sellers?
2. Are there improvements that should be made to increase the likelihood that natural gas indices will reflect the market value at particular locations? For example, could index publishers provide increased transparency when there are insufficient transactions to formulate an index price? What additional information could signal that market activity is sufficiently robust to create accurate prices?
3. For RTOs/ISOs that rely on natural gas indices to develop reference levels for market power mitigation, do you have concerns about the robustness or liquidity of the natural gas indices used in your tariffs? If so, please explain why.
4. Recognizing that the use of natural gas indices in FERC jurisdictional tariffs is different from their use in commercial transactions, the Commission established liquidity thresholds for indices referenced in jurisdictional tariffs.
Should action be taken to foster more meaningful, reliable, and transparent price information in natural gas markets? What changes may be necessary to incent voluntary price reporting and improve the accuracy, reliability, and transparency of natural gas price indices? Discuss the degree to which the level of voluntary reporting and other developments within the commercial service model of natural gas index development impact the robustness of natural gas indices.
Panelists are encouraged to respond to the following:
1. Is there a need to develop industry wide liquidity thresholds? While the Commission maintains certain liquidity thresholds for indices referenced in jurisdictional tariffs, should standards be developed that would apply to other uses of natural gas indices? If so, how can such standards be developed and by whom? Can this be addressed through voluntary consensus or through other regulatory processes? Are there legal, commercial, or technical impediments to doing so?
2. Should the Commission take steps to provide greater natural gas price transparency and market information, promote index developer competition, and enhance confidence in natural gas price formation through increased transparency and accessibility of natural gas index information? For example, should the Commission consider exercising its authority under section 23(a)(1) through (3) of the Natural Gas Act to require market participants to report price forming transactions to index developers?
3. Is index data sufficiently available and transparent? Does the commercial service model negatively or positively impact price formation? What actions, policies, or trends have impacted price discovery? Is there additional information market participants need to ensure robust natural gas price formation? Who should provide that information? How would that information be shared?
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) in Snohomish County, Washington. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before July 21, 2017.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Northwest provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17-441-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EA to be prepared for this project. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
Each scoping session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. PDT. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to provide comments to the court reporter, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 9:00 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 8:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 3-5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.
It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Northwest will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in appendix 2.
Northwest proposes to remove approximately 6.6 miles of the 8-inch-diameter North Seattle Lateral pipeline and replace it with 20-inch-diameter pipeline, primarily in the same trench. The project is in Snohomish County, Washington. According to Northwest, the proposed facilities would increase service reliability and enable Northwest to provide an incremental 196,311 dekatherms per day of firm capacity to serve Puget Sound Energy.
The North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Replace 6.6-miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline with 20-inch-diameter pipeline,
• rebuild the existing North Seattle/Everett meter station in order to accommodate the increased delivery capacity of the North Seattle Lateral,
• relocate an existing 8-inch pig launcher and a 20-inch pig receiver,
• replace an existing 8-inch mainline valve with a 20-inch valve.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 3.
Construction activities related to the Upgrade Project would disturb about 103 acres of land for the pipeline replacement and aboveground facilities. The new pipeline would be installed within Northwest's existing easement. Following construction, Northwest would maintain its existing 48 acres of easement area for permanent operation of the project facilities; the remaining 54 acres of construction work space would be restored and revert to former uses. The entire existing right-of-way in which the replacements would be made parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
Northwest is considering two alternate configurations to the project, as shown in appendix 4. The first option, if geotechnical and engineering studies are favorable, would be to terminate the 20-inch-diameter pipeline at milepost 8.4 and place the relocated pig launcher/receiver at this point, near Newton Road (see figure 4a), rather than at milepost 8.9, as currently proposed. This would shorten the overall length of the pipeline replacement by approximately 0.3 mile. A second alternative is to divert the pipeline off the existing Northwest easement between Yew Way and Waverly Drive as it passes through the Fritch Forest Products mill facility, in order to avoid interference with mill operations. This alternative is depicted in figure 4b.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• endangered and threatened species;
• cultural resources;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2 of this Notice.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
We have already identified two issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Northwest. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
• Effects of construction on residential properties.
• Impacts on sensitive fish species during stream construction activities.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 5).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 116 acres and a storage capacity of 1,740 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,265 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 184 acres and a storage capacity of 2,088 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,400 feet msl; (3) a new 10,000-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 123 megawatts; (5) a new 2,640-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the PPL Electric Utilities' Peckville 230-kilovolt circuit; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 450,380 megawatt-hours.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Four Mile Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near the City of Frostburg in Allegany County, Maryland. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 168 acres and a storage capacity of 2,520 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,800 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 55 acres and a storage capacity of 3,024 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 2,250 feet msl; (3) a new 5,823-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 114 megawatts; (5) a new 2,640-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Frostburg-Jennings 138-kilovolt circuit owned by Potomac Edison; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 414,741 megawatt-hours.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Hudson Hill Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Jackson Township in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 70 acres and a storage capacity of 1,050 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,150 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 36 acres and a storage capacity of 1,260 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,550 feet msl; (3) a new 1,448-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 52 megawatts; (5) a new 7,920-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Laurel Hill 230-kilovolt transmission circuit owned by Pennsylvania Electric Company; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 188,518 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Armenia Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Sullivan Township in Tioga County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 55 acres and a storage capacity of 825 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 2,300 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir with a surface area of 25 acres and a storage capacity of 990 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,700 feet msl; (3) a new 3,568-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 41 megawatts; (5) a new transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Armenia Mountain Wind Farm owned by EDP Renewables North America, LLC; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 148,121 megawatt-hours.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
Project Nos. 2411-027, 2446-049, 3819-011, 7120-063, 7242-059, and 9951-054
On May 19, 2017, STS Hydropower Ltd. (transferor) and STS Hydropower, LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of licenses for the following projects.
The transferor and transferee seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for the above mentioned projects from the transferor to the transferee.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0350, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents for this ICR (The Consolidated Air Rule (CAR) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1854.10; OMB Control No. 2060-0443), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Hawaii's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of Hawaii's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On May 15, 2017, the Hawaii Department of Health (HI DOH) submitted an application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed HI DOH's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Hawaii's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Hawaii's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563, to (1) the EPA online using
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Ms. Susan Fairchild, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code D243-04, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5167; fax number: (919) 541-5450; email address:
Supporting documents for this ICR (Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR part 59, subpart C) (Renewal); OMB Control Number 2060-0348; EPA ICR Number 1764.07), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of New Mexico's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of New Mexico's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On May 19, 2017, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) submitted an application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed NMED's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve New Mexico's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of New Mexico's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), and six SAB committees described in this notice. Appointments will be announced by the EPA Administrator.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than July 27, 2017.
For information about the CASAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, by telephone at 202-564-2050 or by email at
Additional information about the CASAC is available at
The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists in the disciplines described above who have knowledge and experience in
For further information about the chartered SAB membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-4885 or by email at
The SAB Staff Office is also seeking nominations of experts for six SAB committees: The Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee; the Drinking Water Committee; the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee; the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee; the Environmental Engineering Committee; and the Radiation Advisory Committee.
(1) The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) provides advice through the chartered SAB regarding selected toxicological reviews of environmental chemicals available on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience in chemical assessments. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines:
(2) The SAB Drinking Water Committee (DWC) provides advice on the scientific and technical aspects of EPA's national drinking water program. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience on drinking water issues. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines:
(3) The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) provides advice on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of EPA environmental programs. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts in
(4) The SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) provides advice on risk management technologies to control and prevent pollution. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the EEC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines:
(5) The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) provides advice on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the RAC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines
(6) The SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) provides advice through the chartered SAB on the science and research to assess, protect and restore the health of ecosystems. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the EPEC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines:
Nominees are selected based on their individual qualifications. Curriculum vitae should reflect the following:
For the committee as a whole, consideration of the collective breadth and depth of scientific expertise; and a balance of scientific perspectives is important. As these committees undertake specific advisory activities, the SAB Staff Office will consider two additional criteria for each new activity: Absence of financial conflicts of interest and absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality.
Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which nominees are to be considered. The following information should be provided on the nomination form: Contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's
Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB home page at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Nevada's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective July 27, 2017 for the State of Nevada's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On June 6, 2017, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a revised application titled “Compliance Monitoring Data Portal” for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed NDEP's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application, as revised, met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Nevada's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the
NDEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Nevada's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. Public comments were requested previously via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0303, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
Supporting documents for this ICR (“NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60, subparts GGG and GGGa) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0983.15; OMB Control No. 2060-0067), which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands' request to revise/modify its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective June 27, 2017.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On April 25, 2017, the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning & Natural Resources (VI DPNR) submitted an application titled “National Network Discharge Monitoring Report System” for revision to its EPA-approved program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed VI DPNR's request to revise its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve U.S. Virgin Islands' request to revise its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 122 is being published in the
VI DPNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
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 24, 2017.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of request for nominations for public members.
The Council advises the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on matters related to activities of the Agency to carry out its mission. AHRQ's mission is to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and to work within the U.S. epartment of Health and Human Services and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used. Seven current members' terms will expire in November 2017
Nominations should be received on or before 60 days after date of publication.
Nominations should be sent to Jaime Zimmerman AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Nominations may also be emailed to
Jaime Zimmerman, AHRQ, at (301) 427-1456.
42 U.S.C. 299c establishes a National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council) and provides that the Secretary shall appoint to the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality twenty one appropriately qualified individuals. At least seventeen members shall be representatives of the public and at least one member shall be a specialist in the rural aspects of one or more of the professions or fields listed in the above summary. In addition, the Secretary designates, as ex officio members, representatives from other Federal agencies, principally agencies that conduct or support health care research, as well as Federal officials the Secretary may consider appropriate. 42 U.S.C. 299c(c)(3). Consistent with revised guidance regarding the ban on lobbyists serving as members of advisory boards and commissions, AHRQ will accept nominations for Federally registered lobbyists to serve on the Council in a representative capacity.
The Council meets in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, generally in Rockville, Maryland, approximately three times a year to provide broad guidance to the Secretary and AHRQ's Director on the direction of and programs undertaken by AHRQ.
Seven individuals will be selected by the Secretary to serve on the Council beginning with the meeting in the spring of 2018. Members generally serve 3-year terms. Appointments are staggered to permit an orderly rotation of membership. To fill these positions, we are seeking individuals with experience and success in (1) the conduct of research, demonstration projects, and evaluations with respect to health care; (2) the fields of health care quality research or health care improvement; (3) the practice of medicine; (4) other health professions; (5) representing the private health care sector (including health plans, providers, and purchasers) or administrators of health care delivery systems; (6) the fields of health care economics, information systems, law, ethics, business, or public policy; and, (7) representing the interests of patients and consumers of health care.
Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the Council. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations shall include: (1) A copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; and (2) a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Council. Selected candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning their financial interests, consultant positions and research grants and contracts, to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. Please note that once a candidate is nominated, AHRQ may consider that nomination for future positions on the Council.
The Department seeks a broad geographic representation. In addition, AHRQ conducts and supports research concerning priority populations, which include: Low-income groups; minority groups; women; children; the elderly; and individuals with special health care needs, including individuals with disabilities and individuals who need chronic care or end-of-life health care. See 42 U.S.C. 299(c). Nominations of persons with expertise in health care for
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
The meeting will be held at AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20857.
Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Wednesday, July 19, 2017. The agenda, roster, and minutes will be available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.
The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. This meeting is open to the public. The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of
Submission Deadline on or before July 27, 2017.
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email:
AHRQ is conducting this systematic review pursuant to Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please
Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
For patients with early Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), do drug therapies differ in their ability to reduce disease activity, slow or limit the progression of radiographic joint damage, or induce remission?
For patients with early RA, do drug therapies differ in their ability to improve patient-reported symptoms, functional capacity, or quality of life?
For patients with early RA, do drug therapies differ in harms, tolerability, patient adherence, or adverse effects?
What are the comparative benefits and harms of drug therapies for early RA in subgroups of patients based on disease activity, prior therapy, demographics (
Contextual questions are not systematically reviewed and use a “best evidence” approach. Information about the contextual questions may be included as part of the introduction or discussion section and related as appropriate to the Systematic Review.
Does treatment of early RA improve disease trajectory and disease outcomes compared with the trajectory or outcomes of treatment of established RA?
What barriers prevent individuals with early RA from obtaining access to indicated drug therapies?
Adolescents and adult patients with disease greater than 1 year from diagnosis.
Anakinra is excluded because, although it is approved for RA, clinically it is not used anymore for this population.
All other comparisons, including active interventions not listed above.
All other outcomes not listed.
<3 months treatment.
Inpatients.
None.
All other designs not listed.
Languages other than English.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find helpful the following information on
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please
Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
Key Question (KQ) 1. What is the comparative effectiveness of different psychological treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?
I. How does comparative effectiveness vary by patient characteristics or type of trauma experienced?
KQ 2. What is the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?
I. How does comparative effectiveness vary by patient characteristics or type of trauma experienced?
KQ 3. What is the comparative effectiveness of different psychological treatments and pharmacological treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?
I. How does comparative effectiveness vary by patient characteristics or type of trauma experienced?
KQ 4. What adverse events (AEs) are associated with treatments for adults diagnosed with PTSD?
CQ 1a. What are the components of effective psychological treatments (
CQ 1b. For psychological interventions that are effective in trial settings, what is the degree of fidelity when implemented in clinical practice settings?
I. Adults 18 years or older with PTSD based on any DSM diagnostic criteria.
II. Subgroups of interest (KQs 1a, 2a, 3a) include those distinguished by patient characteristics (
All other.
I.
II.
I. Complementary and alternative medicine approaches.
II. Psychological or pharmacological interventions not listed as included.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
All other comparisons
I.
II.
All other outcomes.
I. Studies published from 2012 to the present will be searched to identify new studies meeting the review criteria. Findings of these newly identified studies will be synthesized with those from studies included in the prior review that continue to meet the new review criteria.
II. At least 4 weeks study duration after randomization.
Less than 4 weeks.
Outpatient and inpatient primary care or specialty mental health care; community settings
Other settings.
I.
II.
All other designs and studies using included designs that do not meet the sample size criterion.
Studies published in English.
Studies published in languages other than English.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Customer Surveys Generic Clearance for the National Center for Health Statistics (0920-0729, Expiration 05/31/2017)—Reinstatement—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on “the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.” This is a reinstatement request for a generic approval from OMB to conduct customer surveys over the next three years at an overall burden rate of 4000 hours.
As part of a comprehensive program, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) plans to continue to assess its customers' satisfaction with the content, quality and relevance of the information it produces. NCHS will conduct voluntary customer surveys to assess strengths in agency products and services and to evaluate how well it addresses the emerging needs of its data users. Results of these surveys will be used in future planning initiatives.
The data will be collected using a combination of methodologies appropriate to each survey. These may include: Evaluation forms, mail surveys, focus groups, automated and electronic technology (
In order to capture anticipated additional feedback opportunities, this reinstatement request allows for the potential increase in both respondents and time per response for a total estimated annual burden total of 4,000 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate in the survey. The resulting information will be for NCHS internal use.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:
8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., EDT, August 11, 2017.
CDC, Building 19, Rooms 245-246, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329. This meeting will also be held by teleconference.
Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 20 people. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment, which is tentatively scheduled from 2:45 p.m. to 2:55 p.m., EDT. To participate on the teleconference, please dial 866-917-2712 and enter code 9418625.
The Subcommittee will provide advice to the ACD on strategies, future needs, and challenges faced by State, Tribal, Local and Territorial health agencies, and will provide guidance on opportunities for CDC through the ACD.
The STLT Subcommittee members will discuss progress on implementation of ACD-adopted recommendations related to the health department of the future, other emerging challenges and how CDC can best support STLT health departments in the transforming health system.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
José Montero, MD, Designated Federal Officer, STLT Subcommittee, ACD, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, MS E70, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (404) 498-0259, email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 30, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to June 30, 2017, 6:00 p.m., Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD, 20852 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting start time to 7:00 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information necessary to allow States to request an exemption from maintaining flood insurance on State-owned structures.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Suzan Krowel, Insurance Examiner, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, at (202) 701-3701. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
State-owned properties covered under an adequate State policy of self-insurance satisfactory to FEMA are not required to purchase flood insurance in accordance with Section 102(c)(1) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4012a(c)(1)). NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 75, establish the procedures by which a State insurance plans must meet to be found exempt from the requirement to purchase flood insurance coverage for State-owned structures and their contents. To be eligible for the exemption, State properties must be located in areas identified by the Administrator as A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, A99, M, V, VO, V1-30, VE, and E zones, in which the sale of insurance has been made available.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 27, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, 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
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.
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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments/information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Atlantic Coast Paladin Estates, LLC and Micco Road Investments, LLC c/o the Kelsey Group are requesting a 10-year
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 27, 2017.
If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.
Tera Baird, telephone: (904) 731-3196; email: Tera
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The Act's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
Atlantic Coast Paladin Estates, LLC and Micco Road Investments, LLC c/o the Kelsey Group are requesting take of approximately 99.85 acres of nesting and foraging habitat for the Audubon's crested caracara (
We have determined that the applicants' proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, our proposed issuance of the requested ITP qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) Minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by August 28, 2017.
Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or
Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
Some of the world's most treasured and exotic animals are dangerously close to extinction. Destruction of natural habitat, illegal poaching, and pet-trade smuggling are devastating populations of tigers, rhinos, marine turtles, great apes, elephants, and many other highly cherished species. The Division of International Conservation and Division of Scientific Authority administer competitive grant programs funded under the following authorities:
• African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4245).
• Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261).
• Great Apes Conservation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-411).
• Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306).
• Marine Turtle Conservation Act (Pub. L. 108-266).
• Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Applicants submit proposals for funding in response to Notices of Funding Opportunity published by the Service on
• Project summary and narrative.
• Letter of appropriate government endorsement.
• Brief curricula vitae for key project personnel.
• Complete Standard Forms 424 and 424b (nondomestic applicants do not submit the standard forms).
Proposals may also include, as appropriate, a copy of the organization's Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and any additional documentation supporting the proposed project.
The project summary and narrative are the basis for this information collection. A panel of technical experts reviews each proposal to assess how well the project addresses the priorities identified by each program's authorizing legislation and the associated project costs. As all of the on-the-ground projects are conducted outside the United States, the letter of appropriate government endorsement ensures that the proposed activities will be supportive of locally identified priorities and needs. Brief curricula vitae for key project personnel allow the review panel to assess the qualifications of project staff to effectively carry out the project goals and objectives. As all Federal entities must honor the indirect cost rates an organization has negotiated with its cognizant agency, we require all organizations with a NICRA to submit the agreement paperwork with their proposals to verify how their rate is applied in their proposed budget.
All assistance awards under these grant programs have a maximum reporting requirement of:
• An interim report (performance report and a financial status report) as appropriate, and
• A final report (performance and financial status report and copies of all deliverables, photographic documentation of the project and products resulting from the project) due within 90 days of the end of the performance period.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal
The authorities for this action are the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4245), the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 4261), the Great Apes Conservation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-411), the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306), the Marine Turtle Conservation Act (Pub. L. 108-266), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior is announcing the termination of a lease of power privilege process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure of the Central Utah Project located in Utah County, Utah.
Additional information related to this
The process for non-Federal development of hydroelectric power at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure was established through a
On October 13, 2011, a joint proposal from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Strawberry Water Users Association, and the South Valley Electric Service District was received in response to the Notice. The joint proposal was reviewed by an evaluation team comprised of specialists from the Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, and the Bonneville Power Administration.
Based upon the recommendation from the evaluation team, the joint proposal was selected by the Department of the Interior as the potential lessee for non-Federal power development at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure. The joint applicants were notified of this decision by correspondence dated March 9, 2012, and were given a deadline of March 9, 2017, to enter into a lease with the United States.
The deadline for entering into a lease has now passed and a lease was not negotiated and executed with the Department of the Interior. As a result, the Department of the Interior has rescinded the selection of Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Strawberry Water Users Association, and the South Valley Electric Service District as the successful potential joint lessee and has terminated this lease of power privilege process for the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure.
Future non-Federal development of hydroelectric power at the Spanish Fork Flow Control Structure would be considered upon request from interested parties. However, no formal request for proposals is being made by the Department of the Interior at this time.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 23, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Honeywell International, Inc. of Morris Plains, New Jersey; Hand Held Products, Inc. d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility of Fort Mill, South Carolina; and Metrologic Instruments, Inc. d/b/a Honeywell Scanning & Mobility of Fort Mill, South Carolina. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain bar code readers, scan engines, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,832,725 (“the '725 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,511,572 (“the '572 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,148,923 (“the '923 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,527,206 (“the '206 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,646,692 (“the '692 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,323,969 (“the '969 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained
Katherine Hiner, the Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain bar code readers, scan engines, products containing the same, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1 and 4-6 of the '725 patent; claims 1-4, and 6-10 of the '572 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, and 19-33 of the '923 patent; claims 1, 3, 6-11, 14, 17-20, 23, and 26-28 of the '206 patent; claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-20, 22, 24-27, 30, and 32 of the '692 patent; and claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, and 13 of the '969 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (portions of which will be open to the public) at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, on July 13-14, 2017.
Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, July 14, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Ms. Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, (703) 414-2163.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, on Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, July 14, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2017 Pension (EA-2L) and Basic (EA-1) Examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass scores. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2017 Pension (EA-2F) Examination will be discussed.
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions that may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and the review of the May 2017 EA-2L and EA-1 Examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.
The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2017, and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3:00 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should notify the Joint Board in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and should submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All persons planning to attend the public
On June 19, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Stipulation, Settlement Agreement, Order, and Final Judgment (“Stipulation”) with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the lawsuit entitled
The Stipulation resolves the claims that Evergreen Power, LLC (“Evergreen”) and Asnat Realty, LLC (“Asnat”) filed against the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard, and Captain E.J. Cubanski, III; and the claims that the United States filed against Asnat, Evergreen, Uri Kaufman, and Ira Schwartz (collectively the Counterclaim Defendants”). The United States' Counterclaim seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act and to recover, under the Oil Pollution Act, removal costs incurred by the United States in connection with a 2014 response action at the English Station site at 510 Grand Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut. The Stipulation requires Asnat and Evergreen to pay $454,000 to fully reimburse the United States' oil removal costs, with interest, plus a $246,000 civil penalty. Under the Stipulation, the United States and the Counterclaim Defendants will dismiss their claims and provide mutual releases of liability, and the Counterclaim Defendants covenant not to sue or assert any claims against the United States in connection with the 2014 response action.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Stipulation. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Stipulation may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than July 7, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than (INSERT DATE TEN DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FR).
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with the Section 223 (19 U.S.C. 2273) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) must be met, as follows:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) is that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or “such firm”) have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied by either (A) the Increased Imports Path, or (B) the Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path/Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path, as follows:
(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm, have decreased absolutely;
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by such firm, have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; OR
(i)(I) there has been a shift by such workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; OR
(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which are supplied by such firm;
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of articles or services described in clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(b)) must be met, as follows:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
(2) the workers' firm is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)), and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification (as defined in subsection 222(c)(3) and (4) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(c)(3) and (4));
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; OR
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation determined under paragraph (1).
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272(e)) must be met, by following criteria (1), (2), and (3) as follows:
(1) the workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) An affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(1));
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2436(b)(1)); OR
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) A summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)(1)) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); OR
(B) not withstanding section 223(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (Increased Imports Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (Shift in Production or Services to a Foreign Country Path or Acquisition of Articles or Services from a Foreign Country Path) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the requirements of Trade Act section 222 (a)(1) and (b)(1) (significant worker total/partial separation or threat of total/partial separation), or (e) (firms identified by the International Trade Commission), have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A)(i) (decline in sales or production, or both),or (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs(a)(2)(A) (increased imports), (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country or acquisition of articles or services from a foreign country), (b)(2) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA or downstream producer to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA), and (e) (International Trade Commission) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued in cases where the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the worker group on whose behalf the petition was filed is covered under an existing certification.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the Department issued a negative determination applicable to the petitioning group of workers. No new information or change in circumstances is evident which would result in a reversal of the Department's previous determination.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 354, Data Report on Spouse.”
Submit comments by August 28, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0113 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0113 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Northwest Medical Isotopes (NWMI) will hold a meeting on July 11, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review and comment on Northwest Medical Isotopes construction permit application preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) and the draft NRC safety evaluation reports for a Mo99 Radioisotope Production Facility, which will include Chapters 3, 6, 7, and 8. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Kathy Weaver (Telephone 301-415-6236 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed information collection.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on this proposed collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Collection of Operator Simulator Training Data.”
Submit comments by August 28, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0039 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0039 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 0 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.164, “Dedication of Commercial-Grade Items for Use in Nuclear Power Plants” This RG provides new guidance that describes methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable in meeting regulatory requirements for dedication of commercial-grade items used in nuclear power plants.
Revision 0 to RG 1.164 is available on June 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0133 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jonathan Ortega-Luciano, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301-415-1159, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 0 of RG 1.164 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17041A206) was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1292 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15313A425). This RG proposes new guidance that describes methods that the NRC staff considers acceptable in meeting regulatory requirements for dedication of commercial-grade items used in nuclear power plants.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1292 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Regulatory Guide 1.164, Revision 0, describes a method that the staff of the NRC considers acceptable for dedication of commercial-grade items for use in nuclear power plants. Issuance of this RG does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this RG, the NRC has no current intention to impose this RG on holders of current operating licenses or combined licenses.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states
1.
2.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Effective date: June 27, 2017.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Effective June 27, 2017.
Elizabeth A. Reed, (202) 268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Effective June 27, 2017.
Elizabeth A. Reed, (202) 268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.
Under Section 12 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB may pay annuity benefits to a representative payee when an employee, spouse, or survivor annuitant is incompetent or a minor. The RRB is responsible for determining if direct payment to an annuitant or a representative payee would best serve the annuitant's best interest. The accountability requirements authorizing the RRB to conduct periodic monitoring of representative payees, including a written accounting of benefit payments received, are prescribed in 20 CFR 266.7. The RRB utilizes the following forms to conduct its representative payee monitoring program.
Form G-99a,
In cases where the representative payee does not have custody of the annuitant, proposed Form G-106,
Completion of the forms in this collection is required to retain benefits.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275 or
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on
Under Section 10 of the Railroad Retirement Act and Section 2(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, the RRB may recover overpayments of annuities, pensions, death benefits, unemployment benefits, and sickness benefits that were made erroneously. An overpayment may be waived if the beneficiary was not at fault in causing the overpayment and recovery would cause financial hardship. The regulations for the recovery and waiver of erroneous payments are contained in 20 CFR 255 and CFR 340.
The RRB utilizes Form DR-423, Financial Disclosure Statement, to obtain information about the overpaid beneficiary's income, debts, and expenses if that person indicates that (s)he cannot make restitution for the overpayment. The information is used to determine if the overpayment should be waived as wholly or partially uncollectible. If waiver is denied, the information is used to determine the size and frequency of installment payments. The beneficiary is made aware of the overpayment by letter and is offered a variety of methods for recovery. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may result in a denial of the waiver request.
Under Section 12(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is authorized to select, make payments to, and to conduct transactions with, a beneficiary's relative or some other person willing to act on behalf of the beneficiary as a representative payee. The RRB is responsible for determining if direct payment to the beneficiary or payment to a representative payee would best serve the beneficiary's interest. Inherent in the RRB's authorization to select a representative payee is the responsibility to monitor the payee to assure that the beneficiary's interests are protected. The RRB utilizes Form G-99D, Parental Custody Report, to obtain information needed to verify that a parent-for-child representative payee still has custody of the child. One response is required from each respondent.
Section 2(d)(4) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), provides, in part, that a child is deemed dependent if the conditions set forth in Section 202(d)(3), (4) and (9) of the Social Security Act are met. Section 202(d)(4) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Public Law 104-121, requires as a condition of dependency, that a child receives one-half of his or her support from the stepparent. This dependency impacts upon the entitlement of a spouse or survivor of an employee whose entitlement is based upon having a stepchild of the employee in care, or on an individual seeking a child's annuity as a stepchild of an employee. Therefore, depending on the employee for at least one-half support is a condition affecting eligibility for increasing an employee or spouse annuity under the social security overall minimum provisions on the basis of the presence of a dependent child, the employee's natural child in limited situations, adopted children, stepchildren, grandchildren, step-grandchildren and equitably adopted children. The regulations outlining
In order to correctly determine if an applicant is entitled to a child's annuity based on actual dependency, the RRB uses Form G-139, Statement Regarding Contributions and Support of Children, to obtain financial information needed to make a comparison between the amount of support received from the railroad employee and the amount received from other sources. Completion is required to obtain a benefit. One response is required of each respondent.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275 or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorizes transfer agents registered with an appropriate regulatory agency (“ARA”) to withdraw from registration by filing with the ARA a written notice of withdrawal and by agreeing to such terms and conditions as the ARA deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or in the furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A.
In order to implement Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission promulgated Rule 17Ac3-1(a) and accompanying Form TA-W on September 1, 1977. Rule 17Ac3-1(a) provides that notice of withdrawal of registration as a transfer agent with the Commission shall be filed on Form TA-W. Form TA-W requires the withdrawing transfer agent to provide the Commission with certain information, including: (1) The locations where transfer agent activities are or were performed; (2) the reasons for ceasing the performance of such activities; (3) disclosure of unsatisfied judgments or liens; and (4) information regarding successor transfer agents.
The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form TA-W to determine whether the registered transfer agent applying for withdrawal from registration as a transfer agent should be allowed to deregister and, if so, whether the Commission should attach to the granting of the application any terms or conditions necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or in furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Without Rule 17Ac3-1(a) and Form TA-W, transfer agents registered with the Commission would not have a means to voluntarily deregister it is necessary or appropriate to do so.
On average, respondents have filed approximately 17 TA-Ws with the Commission annually from 2014 to 2017. A Form TA-W filing occurs only once, when a transfer agent is seeking deregistration. Approximately 80 percent of Form TA-Ws are completed by the transfer agent or its employees and approximately 20 percent of Form TA-Ws are completed by an outside filing agent that is hired by the registrant to prepare the form and file it electronically. In view of the readily-available information requested by Form TA-W, its short and simple presentation, and the Commission's experience with the filers, we estimate that approximately 30 minutes is required to complete and file Form TA-W. For transfer agents that complete Form TA-W themselves, we estimate the internal labor cost of compliance per filing is $25 (0.5 hours × $50 average hourly rate for clerical staff time). We estimate that outside filing agents charge $100 to complete and file at TA-W on behalf of a registrant, reflecting an external labor cost to respondents. The total annual time burden to the transfer agent industry is approximately 9 hours (17 filings × 0.5 hours). The total annual external labor cost to respondents is $340 (17 annual forms × $100 × 20%).
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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). 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 purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the criteria for achieving various credits, including by broadening the qualifying order flow and trading activity, to make the different qualifications more achievable to a variety of market participants.
Currently, the Exchange provides a number of incentives for OTP Holders and OTP Firms (collectively, “OTPs”) designed to encourage OTPs to direct additional order flow to the Exchange to achieve more favorable pricing and higher credits. Among these incentives are enhanced posted liquidity credits based on achieving certain percentages of NYSE Arca Equity daily activity, also known as “cross-asset pricing.” In addition, certain of the qualifications for achieving these incentives are more tailored to specific activity (
Pursuant to the Customer and Professional Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues (the “Penny Credit Tiers”), Customer and Professional Customer orders that post liquidity and are executed on the Exchange earn a base credit of $0.25 per contract, with the ability to earn increased credits based on the participant's activity. There are currently seven Penny Credit Tiers with associated qualifications. The Exchange is not proposing any change to Penny Credit Tiers 1 through 5.
Regarding current Penny Credit Tier 6, an OTP is eligible to achieve a credit of $0.48 per contract, provided the OTP has (i) at least 0.35% of Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option ADV (“TCADV”) from Customer and Professional Customer Posted Orders in all Issues, and (ii) Executed ADV of 0.80% of U.S. Equity Market Share Posted and Executed on NYSE Arca Equity Market. The Exchange proposes to add an alternative qualification basis to Tier 6, which would enable an OTP to qualify for the $0.48 per contract credit, provided the OTP has (i) at least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and Professional Customer Posted orders in all Issues, and (ii) at least 0.45% of TCADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to rename current Penny Credit Tier 7 as Tier 8, and to add a new Tier 7 with an associated credit of $0.49 per contract. As proposed, OTPs may qualify for the new Tier 7 by achieving a level of at least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and Professional Customer Posted orders in all Issues, plus at least 0.60% of TCADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume.
The Exchange is also proposing a small clarifying change to the Penny Credit Tiers by replacing “Total Industry Customer equity and ETF option average daily volume” with “TCADV” and explaining the abbreviation with a note at the bottom of the table referenced by an asterisk in the table header.
Next, the Exchange proposes to modify the Customer and Professional Customer Incentive Program (the “Incentive Program”) by replacing two of the possible incentives that are based solely on Market Maker Posted Orders with new incentives that combine a level of Market Maker Total Electronic Volume and Customer and Professional Customer volume. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to no longer provide an additional $0.01 per contract credit for OTPs that achieve an ADV from Market Maker Posted Orders equal to 0.80% of TCADV. Instead, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional $0.01 per contract credit incentive for an OTP that
The Exchange is also proposing modifications to the Customer and Professional Customer Posting Credit Tiers in Non-Penny Pilot Issues (“Non-Penny Credit Tiers”) that would enable OTPs to include volume from an affiliated or Appointed Market Maker to achieve these Tiers. There are currently four Non-Penny Tiers Credit Tiers. The Exchange is not proposing any change to Non-Penny Credit Tiers A or B. The Exchange proposes to rename current Tier C to Tier D and to add a new Tier C. As proposed, new Tier C will be achieved by meeting at least 0.50% TCADV from Customer and Professional Customer Posted Order executions in all Issues, plus an ADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume equal to 0.45% of TCADV. OTPs that qualify for proposed Tier C will receive a credit of $0.94 per contract. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to designate the current Non-Penny Credit Tier D as Tier F, and introduce a new Tier E. As proposed, new Tier E will be achieved by meeting at least 0.50% of TCADV from Customer and Professional Customer posted orders in all issues, plus an ADV from Market Maker Total Electronic Volume equal to 0.60% of TCADV. OTPs that qualify for proposed Tier E will receive a credit of $1.00 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to amend endnote 8 of the Fee Schedule to clarify make clear [sic] that the Exchange is adopting the term “Market Maker Total Electronic Volume,” which is calculated on the same basis as Customer volumes, in that Electronic Complex Order Executions, QCC Transactions, and executions of orders routed to another market are not included. By defining long standing practice, the Exchange believes this adds clarity to the calculation of Market Maker Total Electronic Volume, and is consistent with the treatment of Customer volumes. Complex strategies carry no market making obligations beyond making markets for simple executions in the component legs of the strategy; for this reason they are not included in Total Electronic Market Maker Volume. Similarly, QCCs are negotiated transactions that neither post nor take liquidity, and therefore QCCs do not interact with Market Makers quotes. Market Maker orders routed to another market do not contribute to activity on NYSE Arca, and are therefore not included.
The Exchange is also correcting two minor typographical errors within the Fee Schedule, placing a hyphen between “Non” and “Penny” in the header of “Customer and Professional Customer Posting Credit Tiers In Non Penny Pilot Issues”, and removing an underlined space in “Credit Applied to Posted Electronic Customer and Professional Customer Executions in Penny Pilot Issues”, which should add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
Finally, given the proposed increase in the number of Penny Credit Tiers from seven to eight, the Exchange proposes to make clear that OTPs that achieve Tier 6, 7, or 8, (rather than just Tier 6 or 7) will be capped at $65,000 under the Firm and Broker Dealer Monthly Fee Cap.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that providing alternative qualifications for the Penny and Non-Penny Credit Tiers and the Incentive Program is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because, among other things, it increases the methods of qualifying for greater credits through the inclusion of affiliated or appointed Market Maker volume. The proposed changes would also provide additional means (via the proposed new Tiers) for OTPs to qualify for credits for posting volume on the Exchange. By providing alternative methods to qualify for a Tier or an Incentive, the Exchange believes the opportunities to qualify for rebates is increased, which benefits all participants through both increased Customer (and Professional Customer) volume and increased Market Maker activity. The Exchange notes that allowing participants to aggregate volume is not new or novel.
The Exchange also believes the proposed changes would be available to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the proposed modifications are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they encourage more participants to qualify for the various incentives, including encouraging more participants to have affiliated or appointed order flow directed to the Exchange. Further, encouraging Market Makers to send higher volumes of orders to the Exchange would also contribute to the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity.
The credits are also reasonable as they are within the current range of credits on posted Customer and Professional Customer orders.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive changes to
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Exchange Rule 6.72 in order to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain issues (“Pilot Program”) previously approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) through December 31,
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 hereby proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Exchange 6.72 to extend the time period of the Pilot Program,
This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot Program: All classes currently participating will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. 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 proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating in it. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will allow the Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration on June 30, 2017. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but instead relates to the continuation of an existing program that operates on a pilot basis.
The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enabling public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options to the benefit of all market participants.
The proposal to extend the Pilot Program is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program while also allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot Program.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot Program is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for continued competition between Exchange market participants trading similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot Program.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to NYSE Amex Options Rule 960NY in order to extend the Penny Pilot in options classes in certain
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 hereby proposes to amend Commentary .02 to Exchange Rule 960NY to extend the time period of the Pilot Program,
This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the Pilot Program: All classes currently participating will remain the same and all minimum increments will remain unchanged. 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 proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
In particular, the proposed rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months, allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating in it. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will allow the Exchange to extend the Pilot Program prior to its expiration on June 30, 2017. The Exchange notes that this proposal does not propose any new policies or provisions that are unique or unproven, but instead relates to the continuation of an existing program that operates on a pilot basis.
The Exchange believes that the Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by enabling public customers and other market participants to express their true prices to buy and sell options to the benefit of all market participants.
The proposal to extend the Pilot Program is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, by allowing the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze the impact of the Pilot Program while also allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot Program.
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. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Pilot Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection. The Pilot Program is an industry-wide initiative supported by all other option exchanges. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program will allow for continued competition between NYSE Amex Options market participants trading similar products as their counterparts on other exchanges, while at the same time allowing the Exchange to continue to compete for order flow with other exchanges in option issues trading as part of the Pilot Program.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt initial and continued listing standards for the listing of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks.
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.
Nasdaq proposes to adopt initial and continued listing standards for the listing of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks. An Equity Investment Tracking Stock is defined as a class of common equity securities that tracks on an unleveraged basis the performance of an investment by the issuer in the common equity securities of a single other company listed on the Exchange.
An Equity Investment Tracking Stock may be listed on the Nasdaq Global
Proposed Rule 5222(a) provides that, prior to the commencement of trading of any Equity Investment Tracking Stock, Nasdaq will distribute an information circular to its members that describes any special characteristics and risks of trading the Equity Investment Tracking Stock, and lists Exchange Rules that will apply to the Equity Investment Tracking Stock including rules that require members: (A) To use reasonable diligence in regard to the opening and maintenance of every account, to know (and retain) the essential facts concerning every customer and concerning the authority of each person acting on behalf of such customer; and (B) in recommending transactions in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock to have a reasonable basis to believe that (i) the recommendation is suitable for a customer given reasonable inquiry concerning the customer's investment objectives, financial situation, needs, and any other information known by such members, and (ii) the customer can evaluate the special characteristics, and is able to bear the financial risks, of an investment in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock.
Proposed Rule 5222(b) provides that in addition to the initial listing requirements of the Rule 5300 Series,
Proposed Rule 5222(c) provides that in addition to the continued listing requirements of the Rule 5400 Series
Nasdaq also proposes to amend Rule 5810(c)(1) to provide that an Equity Investment Tracking Stock's failure to comply with the additional continued listing requirements in Rule 5222(c) or the issuance of a Staff Delisting Determination with respect to the security such Equity Investment Tracking Stock tracks will constitute a deficiency that will immediately result in Nasdaq issuing a Delisting Determination with regard to the Equity Investment Tracking Stock.
Proposed Rule 5222(d) imposes additional disclosure and procedural requirements on the Equity Investment Tracking Stock when a listed equity security whose value is tracked by the Equity Investment Tracking Stock is subject to deficiency procedures. These requirements are designed to provide investors in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock with notice about the potential delisting of the listed equity security or securities whose value is tracked by the Equity Investment Tracking Stock and to assure that the Equity Investment Tracking Stock is treated in the same manner as the equity security whose value it tracks during the deficiency administration process. Specifically, if the issuer of the security that the Equity Investment Tracking Stock tracks announces that it has received a deficiency notification then the issuer of the Equity Investment Tracking Stock must promptly publicly announce (either by filing a Form 8-K, where required by SEC rules, or by issuing a press release) that fact.
In addition, proposed Rule 5222(d) provides that notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, if the Staff Delisting Determination issued to the security such Equity Investment Tracking Stock tracks is stayed pursuant to the Rule 5800 Series, the suspension of the Equity Investment Tracking Stock also will be stayed and will remain stayed on the same terms that apply to the security such Equity Investment Tracking Stock tracks.
Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4120(a) governing Nasdaq's authority to initiate trading halts or pauses and Rule IM-5250-1 providing interpretive material regarding trading halts to provide that, in the event that the issuer of the common equity security tracked by an Equity Investment Tracking Stock intends to issue a material news release during the trading day and Nasdaq determines that a regulatory trading halt should be implemented, including a trading halt pending dissemination of the news, Nasdaq will also halt trading in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock simultaneously with the halt in the security it tracks and will also recommence trading at the same time. In addition, Nasdaq will halt trading in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock if the security it tracks is suspended from trading, such as while the security is pending delisting.
Nasdaq proposes to amend Rules 5401 and 5501 to update the preamble to these rules and Rule 5305 to provide that an Equity Investment Tracking Stock may be listed as a primary equity security or as a secondary class of common stock, as applicable, provided it must also meet the requirements set forth in Rule 5222.
Nasdaq represents that it will monitor activity in Equity Investment Tracking Stocks to identify and deter any potential improper trading activity in such securities. The Exchange will adopt surveillance procedures, and make any enhancements necessary, sufficient to enable it to monitor Equity Investment Tracking Stocks alongside the securities whose value they track. Additionally, the Exchange will rely on its existing trading surveillances, administered by the Exchange, or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
Given the novel investment characteristics of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks, the Exchange will conduct a review of the trading and compliance with continued listing standards of Equity Investment Tracking Stocks and their issuers over the initial two year period for which the proposed listing standard is in operation.
The Exchange will furnish two reports to the SEC based on this review, one to be provided no later than sixty days after the first anniversary of the adoption of the proposed rule, which will cover the first year, and the second to be provided one year later, which will cover the second year. At a minimum, the reports will address the relationship between the trading prices of listed Equity Investment Tracking Stocks and those of the securities whose values they track, the liquidity of the market for the two securities, and any manipulation concerns arising in connection with the trading of securities listed under the standard and the securities whose values are being tracked. The reports will also discuss any recommendations the Exchange may have for enhancements to the listing standard based on its review.
Nasdaq proposes to make a conforming change to Rule 5950(e)(3) to allow for the renumbering of the defined terms in Rule 5005(a).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the proposed listing standards are designed to protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that Equity Investment Tracking Stocks listed on the Exchange meet stringent quantitative and qualitative listing standards to qualify for initial and continued listing. The Exchange notes that trading in an Equity Investment Tracking Stock will be halted and subject to delisting if it does not meet another applicable initial listing standard and (i) the equity security or securities whose value is tracked by the Equity Investment Tracking Stock ceases to be listed on the Exchange or is suspended pending delisting; (ii) the issuer of the Equity Investment Tracking Stock owns (directly or indirectly) less than 50% of either the economic interest or the voting power of all of the outstanding classes of common equity of the issuer whose equity is tracked by the Equity Investment Tracking Stock; or (iii) the Equity Investment Tracking Stock ceases to track the performance of the listed equity security that was tracked at the time of initial listing. If the security whose value is tracked by an Equity Investment Tracking Stock changes tiers (
The Equity Investment Tracking Stocks will have to meet the requirements of the proposed Listing Rule 5222 in addition to the other listing requirement applicable to equity securities. The issuer of an Equity Investment Tracking Stock must fully comply with the requirements of the Rule 5100 Series, the disclosure obligations set forth in the Rule 5200 Series, the quantitative requirements set forth in the Rule 5300 Series, the Rule 5400 Series or the Rule 5500 Series, and the Corporate Governance requirements set forth in the Rule 5600 Series, subject to applicable exemptions such as those for controlled companies.
The proposed rule change is designed to provide equivalent treatment to an Equity Investment Tracking Stock as is provided to the security or securities it tracks, and therefore it will not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Exchange notes that it is proposing to amend Rule 4120(a) governing Nasdaq's authority to initiate trading halts or pauses and Rule IM-5250-1 providing interpretive material regarding trading halts to provide that, in the event that the issuer of the common equity security tracked by an Equity Investment Tracking Stock intends to issue a material news release during the trading day and Nasdaq determines that a regulatory trading halt should be implemented pending dissemination of the news or if Nasdaq determines that any other required regulatory trading halt should be implemented, the Exchange will also halt trading in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock simultaneously with the halt in the security whose values is being tracked and will also recommence trading at the same time. The Exchange believes that this proposed amendment will protect investors and the public interest by preventing market participants from gaining an advantage in trading in an Equity Investment Tracking Stock based on their possession of material nonpublic information with respect to the company whose value is being tracked by the Equity Investment Tracking Stock. In addition, Nasdaq will halt trading in the Equity Investment Tracking Stock if the security whose value is being tracked is suspended from trading, such as while the security is pending delisting.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to provide listing standards for Equity Investment Tracking Stocks that are appropriately protective of investors and is not designed to limit the ability of the issuers of those securities to list them on any other national securities exchange. The market for listing services is extremely competitive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated 06/20/2017.
Effective 06/20/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15179 B and for economic injury is 15180 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Texas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated 06/20/2017.
Effective 06/20/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15181 B and for economic injury is 15182 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Texas
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than August 28, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
Because SSA employees are Federal workers exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the burden below is only for SSA contractors and physicians (of both SSA employees and contractors).
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 27, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1. Disability Report-Appeal—20 CFR 404.1512, 416.912, 404.916(c), 416.1416(c), 422.140, 404.1713, 416.1513, 404.1740(b)(4), 416.1540(b)(4), and 405 Subpart C—0960-0144. SSA requires disability applicants who wish to appeal an unfavorable disability determination to complete Form SSA-3441-BK; the associated Electronic Disability Collect System (EDCS) interview; or the Internet application, i3441. This allows claimants to disclose any changes to their disability, or resources, which might influence SSA's unfavorable determination. We may use the information to: (1) Reconsider and review an initial disability determination; (2) review a continuing disability; and (3) evaluate a request for a hearing. This information assists the State Disability Determination Services (DDS) and administrative law judges (ALJ) in preparing for the appeals and hearings, and in issuing a determination or decision on an individual's entitlement (initial or continuing) to disability benefits. In addition, the information we collect on the SSA-3441-BK, or related modalities, facilitates SSA's collection of medical information to support the applicant's request for reconsideration; request for benefits cessation appeal; and request for a hearing before an ALJ. Respondents are individuals who appeal denial, reduction, or cessation of Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments; individuals who wish to request a hearing before an ALJ; or their representatives.
2. Disability Case Development Information Collections By State Disability Determination Services On Behalf of SSA—20 CFR, subpart P, 404.1503a, 404.1512, 404.1513, 404.1514, 404.1517, 404.1519; 20 CFR
There are three CE information collections: (a) Medical evidence about claimants' medical condition(s) that DDS's use to make disability determinations when the claimant's own medical sources cannot or will not provide the required information, and proof of credentials from CE providers; (b) CE appointment letters; and (c) CE claimant reports sent to claimants' doctors.
The DDS's collect MER information from the claimant's medical sources to determine a claimant's physical or mental status prior to making a disability determination.
The DDS's use information about pain/symptoms to determine how pain/symptoms affect the claimant's ability to do work-related activities prior to making a disability determination.
The total estimated annual burden for all categories described in this information collection is 4,501,166 hours.
3.
The Indiana Rail Road Company (INRD)
INRD has certified that (1) no local traffic has moved over the Bedford trackage for at least two years; (2) any overhead traffic can be and has been rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Bedford trackage (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service on the Bedford trackage is pending either with the Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will be effective on July 27, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to INRD's representative: Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
May 1-31, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312,
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. Archbald Energy Partners, LLC, ABR-201705001, Archbald Township, Lackawanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 0.3000 mgd; Approval Date: May 10, 2017.
1. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: PetersenH P1, ABR-201205002.R1, Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 8, 2017.
2. Campbell Oil & Gas, Inc., Pad ID: Mid Penn Unit B Well Pad, ABR-201206017.R1, Bigler and Knox Townships, Clearfield County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 8, 2017.
3. SWEPI, LP, Pad ID: Wilson 286, ABR-201203027.R1, Charleston Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 8, 2017.
4. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: BunnellE P2, ABR-201205001.R1, Bridgewater and Dimock Townships, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 9, 2017.
5. Chief Oil & Gas, LLC, Pad ID: Mehalick Drilling Pad, ABR-201210018.R1, Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 10, 2017.
6. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Slattery, ABR-201211004.R1, Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: May 15, 2017.
7. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Joeguswa, ABR-201211019.R1, Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: May 15, 2017.
8. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 293 Pad E, ABR-201207011.R1, Cummings and McHenry Townships, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.5000 mgd; Approval Date: May 17, 2017.
9. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: BusikJ P1, ABR-201206001.R1, Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 23, 2017.
10. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: WaldenbergerP P1, ABR-201206002.R1, Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 23, 2017.
11. SWN Production Company, LLC, Pad ID: Blaine Hoyd (M Pad), ABR-201207006.R1, Stevens Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9990 mgd; Approval Date: May 23, 2017.
12. SWN Production Company, LLC, Pad ID: Beaumont Schaunt (GU U), ABR-201207007.R1, Stevens Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.9990 mgd; Approval Date: May 23, 2017.
13. SWN Production Company, LLC, Pad ID: Barnhart Well Pad, ABR-201205005.R1, Liberty Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: May 30, 2017.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comment.
The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain airport properties 7.911 acres at the Williston Municipal Airport, Florida from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the Williston Municipal Airport, dated March 31, 1947. The City of Williston dedicated a 7.911 acre tract along 170th Avenue NE., 20th Street NE., 175th Avenue and NE., 25th Street to become a Public Right-of-Way. The Fair Market Value (FMV) of this parcel has been determined to be $44,600.00.
Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Williston Municipal and the FAA Airports District Office.
Comments are due on or before July 27, 2017.
Documents are available for review at the Williston Municipal Airport, 1800 SW. 19th Avenue, Williston, FL 32696 and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Scott Lippmann, City and Airport Manager, City of Williston, 50 NW. Main Street, P.O. Box Drawer 160, Williston, FL 32696-0160.
Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or modification” of a sponsor's Federal
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 17, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0582 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
RTCA PMC Program Management Committee meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting RTCA PMC Program Management Committee. PMC is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held July 13, 2017, 08:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 430, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA PMC Program Management Committee. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant New Prime, Inc. (Prime) an exemption from the regulation that requires a commercial learner's permit (CLP) holder to be accompanied by a commercial driver's license (CDL) holder with the proper CDL class and endorsements, seated in the front seat of the vehicle while the CLP holder performs behind-the-wheel training on public roads or highways. Under the terms and conditions of this exemption, a CLP holder who has documentation of passing the CDL skills test may drive a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for Prime without being accompanied by a CDL holder in the front seat of the vehicle; however, a CDL holder must be in the vehicle. The exemption enables CLP holders to drive as part of a team and have the same regulatory flexibility as Prime team drivers with CDLs. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
The exemption is effective from June 27, 2017 through June 27, 2022.
Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: (614) 942-6477. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from some of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Prime is one of the nation's largest motor carriers, with a fleet of more than 7,500 CMVs. Prime seeks an exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1) that would allow CLP holders who have successfully passed a CDL skills test and are thus eligible to receive a CDL, to drive a truck without a CDL holder being present in the front seat of the vehicle. Prime indicates that the CDL holder will remain in the vehicle at all times while the CLP holder is driving—just not in the front seat. This would allow a CLP holder to participate in a revenue-producing trip back to his or her State of domicile to obtain the CDL document, as the CDL can only be issued by the State of domicile in accordance with 49 CFR part 383. Prime advises that 2,500 to 3,500 CLP holders would operate under the terms of the exemption each year.
Prime states that 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1) creates undue burdens on the company and its CLP holders, while also contributing to the unprecedented driver shortage that continues to plague the commercial trucking industry. Presently, the constraints that Prime faces in adhering to the requirements of 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1) are exceptionally cost-intensive. Prior to the adoption of that regulation, it was not uncommon for States to issue temporary CDLs to CLP holders for the return trip to collect the CDL document from their State of domicile. During that time, CDL holders neither required logged themselves “on duty” when supervising the CLP holder who had a temporary CDL, nor did they always remain in the passenger seat of the CMV. Under that scenario, the productivity of the CMV, the earnings capacity of the CDL and CLP holders, and the logistics of the motor carrier's freight network were all protected. Under the current rule, however, carriers must assign a second CDL holder to the vehicle to accomplish the on-duty work that was previously performed by the CLP holder who had a temporary CDL.
Prime contends that compliance with the CDL rule leaves it with only two options. It can either: (1) Secure some mode of public transportation from the State of training to the State of domicile to allow the CLP holder to collect his or her CDL document before returning to Prime; or (2) route the team of drivers directly to the CLP holder's State of domicile, often against the natural flow of the freight network. Prime argued that securing public transit for each of the CLP holders under Option 1 entails extreme cost burdens to the company; and Option 2 is no better because routing CLP holders directly to their home States, commonly without reference to shipper demand, introduces extreme cost inefficiencies.
Other reasons cited by Prime in support of the request include: (1) CDL-issuing agencies may require many days, if not weeks, to secure the CLP holder's licensure materials. CLP holders suffer financial hardship during this waiting period. As commercial truck driving is already known for its high turnover rates, requiring such
On December 20, 2016, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comment (81 FR 92947). The Agency received 13 sets of comments from individuals/drivers in unanimous opposition to the request. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA) also opposed the request. No one commented in support of the application.
OOIDA commented that the exemption request is not based upon increased safety, but rather upon granting an economic advantage over carriers with similar business practices who would continue to be held to the standards of 49 U.S.C. 31315(a). The claimed economic hardship which is stated, but not supported by data, is exaggerated. OOIDA commented that all of the stated hardships and claims by Prime could be avoided by producing well-trained drivers through their driving training school and compensating them accordingly, which would also lead to lower driver turnover rates.
Other reasons given in opposition include: (1) Prime's application undermines existing Federal safety regulations. Granting the exemption will result in a substantial reduction in the level of safety currently provided by the regulation; (2) while FMCSA should consider the impact its regulations have on productivity, it does not need to grant an exemption based on the desire to increase productivity at all costs. All this exemption would do is allow a large trucking company to bypass the regulations that are in place for public safety; and (3) if not on duty in the passenger seat of the CMV, how is the CDL holder supervising the unlicensed driver and seeing the road conditions, and how does an instructor who is not supervising the trainee or evaluating the road conditions help the CLP holder? Commenters state that the exemption request does not provide a sufficient answer to these questions.
The premise of respondents opposing the exemption is that CLP holders lack experience and drive more safely when observed by a CDL driver-trainer who is on duty and in the front seat of the vehicle. The fact is that CLP holders who have passed the CDL skills test are qualified and eligible to obtain a CDL. If these CLP holders had obtained their training and CLPs in their State of domicile, they could immediately obtain their CDL at the State driver licensing agency and begin driving a CMV without on-board supervision. There are no data showing that having a CDL holder accompany a CLP holder who has passed the skills test improves safety. Because these drivers have passed the CDL skills test, the only thing necessary to obtain the CDL is to visit the Department of Motor Vehicles in their State of domicile.
FMCSA has evaluated Prime's application for exemption and the public comments. The Agency believes that Prime's overall safety performance, as reflected in its “satisfactory” safety rating, will enable it to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The exemption is restricted to Prime's CLP holders who have documentation that they have passed the CDL skills test. The exemption will enable these drivers to operate a CMV as a team driver without requiring the accompanying CDL holder be on duty and in the front seat while the vehicle is moving.
This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1) is effective from June 27, 2017 through June 27, 2022.
The exemption is contingent upon Prime maintaining USDOT registration, minimum levels of public liability insurance, and not being subject to any “imminent hazard” or other out-of-service (OOS) order issued by FMCSA. Each driver covered by the exemption must maintain a valid driver's license and CLP with the required endorsements, not be subject to any OOS order or suspension of driving privileges, and meet all physical qualifications required by 49 CFR part 391.
This exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(a)(1) will allow Prime drivers who hold a CLP and have successfully passed a CDL skills test, to drive a CMV without a CDL holder being present in the front seat of the vehicle. The CDL holder must remain in the vehicle at all times while the CLP holder is driving—but not in the front seat.
During the period this exemption is in effect, no State may enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with the exemption with respect to a person or entity operating under the exemption (49 U.S.C. 31315(d)).
Prime must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accidents (as defined by 49 CFR 390.5) involving the operation of any of its CMVs while utilizing this exemption. The notification must be by email to
a.
b. Date of the accident,
c. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or which is closest to the scene of the accident,
d. Driver's name and driver's license number,
e. Vehicle number and State license number,
f. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
g. Number of fatalities,
h. The police-reported cause of the accident,
i. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, or motor carrier safety regulations, and
j. The total driving time and the total on-duty time of the CMV driver at the time of the accident.
The FMCSA does not believe the CLP-holders covered by the exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
FMCSA is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, FMCSA 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. FMCSA proposes a pilot program to allow temporary regulatory relief from the Agency's sleeper berth regulation for a limited number of commercial drivers who have a valid commercial driver's license (CDL), and who regularly use a sleeper berth to accumulate their required 10 hours of non-duty work status. During the pilot program, participating drivers would have the option to split their sleeper berth time within parameters specified by FMCSA. Driver metrics would be collected for the duration of the study, and participants' safety performance and fatigue levels would be analyzed. This pilot program seeks to produce statistically reliable evidence on the question as to whether split sleeper berth time affects driver safety performance and fatigue levels.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2016-0394 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nicole Michel, Research Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at
As described in 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1), a driver who operates a property-carrying CMV equipped with a sleeper berth
During listening sessions for the hours-of-service (HOS) rulemaking, the
The Flexible Sleeper Berth Pilot Program requires that participating drivers be provided relief from Part 395 concerning consolidated sleeper berth time requirements. Participating drivers will be asked if they have completed the Driver Education Module of the North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP) prior to study enrollment. If drivers have not completed the program, they will be given information on the program and encouraged, but not required, to complete these modules prior to participation in the study. During the pilot program, participating drivers will have the option to split their sleeper berth time, within parameters specified by FMCSA (
Details of the data collection plan for this pilot program are subject to change based on comments to the docket and further review by analysts. Participating drivers will drive an instrumented vehicle for up to 3 consecutive months. At a minimum, FMCSA will gather the following data during the study:
• Electronic logging device (ELD) data, to evaluate duty hours and timing, driving hours and timing, rest breaks, off-duty time, and restart breaks.
• Onboard monitoring system (OBMS) data, to evaluate driving behaviors, safety-critical events (or SCEs, which include crashes, near-crashes, and other safety-related events), reaction time, fatigue, lane deviations, and traffic density, road curvature, and speed variability.
• Roadside violation data (from carriers and drivers), including vehicle, duty status, hazardous materials, and cargo-related violations (contingent upon inspections).
• Wrist actigraphy data,
• Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT)
• Subjective sleepiness ratings, using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS),
• Sleep logs, in which drivers will document when they are going to sleep, when they wake up, and whether they are using the sleeper berth. For split-sleep days, drivers will record how and why they chose to split their sleep.
Other information that may be needed, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT), will also be collected through the participating carrier. Every effort will be made to reduce the burden on the carrier in collecting and reporting this data.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) prohibits agencies from conducting information collection (IC) activities until they analyze the need for the collection of information and how the collected data will be managed. Agencies must also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time required to complete a particular form. The Agency submits its IC analysis and burden estimate to OMB as a formal ICR; the Agency cannot conduct the information collection until OMB approves the ICR.
FMCSA asks for comment on the IC requirements of this study. Comments can be submitted to the docket as outlined under
1. Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions.
2. The accuracy of the estimated burden.
3. Ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information.
4. Ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
5. Whether the data collection efforts proposed for carriers and drivers are burdensome enough to discourage their participation.
6. How data collection efforts should differ for team drivers.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
Pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation, the Maritime Administrator is authorized to issue waivers allowing documented vessels with only registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels to be used in operations that treat aquaculture fish or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health when suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those services. A request
Submit comments on or before July 27, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2017-0113 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
If you have questions on viewing the Docket, call Docket Operations, telephone: (800) 647-5527.
As a result of the enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, codified at 46 U.S.C. 12102, the Secretary of Transportation has the discretionary authority to issue waivers allowing documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels to be used in operations that treat aquaculture fish for or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health when suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those services. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Maritime Administrator. Pursuant to this authority, MARAD is providing notice of the service requirements proposed by Cooke Aquaculture (Cooke) in order to make a U.S.-flag vessel availability determination. Specifics can be found in Cooke's application letter posted in the docket.
In order to comply with USCG Aquaculture Support regulations at 46 CFR part 106, Cooke is seeking a MARAD Aquaculture Waiver to operate the vessels SADIE JANE as follows:
Interested parties may submit comments providing detailed information relating to the availability of U.S.-flag vessels to perform the required aquaculture support services. If MARAD determines, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12102(d)(1) and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388, that suitable U.S.-flag vessels are available to perform the required services, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria set forth in 46 CFR 388.4.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), MARAD solicits comments from the public to inform its process to determine the availability of suitable vessels. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(w).
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the agencies' publication for public comment of a proposal to revise the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic Offices Only and Total Assets Less Than $1 Billion (FFIEC 051), the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic Offices Only (FFIEC 041), and the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic and Foreign Offices (FFIEC 031), which are currently approved collections of information. The Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income are commonly referred to as the Call Report.
The proposed revisions to the FFIEC 051, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 031 Call Reports would result in an overall reduction in burden. In particular, the proposed revisions primarily relate to the deletion or consolidation of a large number of items, the raising of certain reporting thresholds, and a reduction in reporting frequency for a number of items. The proposed revisions also address the definition of “past due” for regulatory reporting purposes as well as changes in the accounting for equity investments. The proposed revisions would take effect as of the March 31, 2018, report date. At the end of the comment period for this notice, the comments and recommendations received will be reviewed to determine whether the FFIEC and the agencies should modify the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 051, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 031 prior to giving final approval. As required by the PRA, the agencies will then publish a second
Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies.
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed revisions to the Call Report discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the Call Report forms can be obtained at the FFIEC's Web site (
The agencies propose revisions to data items reported on the FFIEC 051, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 031 Call Reports.
The proposed burden-reducing revisions are the result of an ongoing effort by the agencies to reduce the burden associated with the preparation and filing of Call Reports and, as detailed in Appendices B, C, and D, achieve burden reductions by the removal or consolidation of numerous items, the raising of certain reporting thresholds, and a reduction in reporting frequency for certain items. The proposed revision to the definition of “past due” for regulatory reporting purposes would promote the use of consistent standards in the industry. The proposed revisions to the reporting of equity investments are consistent with changes in the accounting standards applicable to such investments.
The estimated average burden hours, which reflect an overall reduction, collectively reflect the estimates for the FFIEC 051, the FFIEC 041, and the FFIEC 031 reports. When the estimates are calculated by type of report across the agencies, the estimated average burden hours per quarter are 39.47 (FFIEC 051), 58.37 (FFIEC 041), and 123.25 (FFIEC 031). The estimated burden per response for the quarterly filings of the Call Report is an average that varies by agency because of differences in the composition of the institutions under each agency's supervision (
These information collections are mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 161 (for national banks), 12 U.S.C. 324 (for state member banks), 12 U.S.C. 1817 (for insured state nonmember commercial and savings banks), and 12 U.S.C. 1464 (for federal and state savings associations). At present, except for selected data items and text, these information collections are not given confidential treatment.
Institutions submit Call Report data to the agencies each quarter for the agencies' use in monitoring the condition, performance, and risk profile of individual institutions and the industry as a whole. Call Report data serve a regulatory or public policy purpose by assisting the agencies in fulfilling their missions of ensuring the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the financial system and the protection of consumer financial rights, as well as agency-specific missions affecting national and state-chartered institutions,
As part of an initiative launched by the FFIEC in December 2014 to identify potential opportunities to reduce burden associated with Call Report requirements for community banks, the FFIEC and the agencies have taken several actions, including: (1) The finalization in mid-2016 of a number of burden-reducing changes and other revisions to the Call Report that were implemented in September 2016 and March 2017; (2) outreach to institutions to obtain a better understanding of significant sources of reporting burden in their Call Report preparation processes; and (3) the creation of a new streamlined FFIEC 051 Call Report for eligible small institutions that took effect as of the March 31, 2017, report date.
As another key part of the FFIEC's community bank burden-reduction initiative, in 2015 the agencies accelerated the start of the next statutorily mandated review of the existing Call Report data items (Full Review),
Based on the results of a portion of the user surveys, the agencies propose various burden-reducing changes in this proposal. A summary of the FFIEC member entities' uses of the data items retained in the Call Report schedules covered in this portion of the user surveys is included in Appendix A. The results of the agencies' initial reviews of the first portion of the user surveys were included in the agencies' August 2016 Call Report proposal for a new streamlined FFIEC 051 Call Report for eligible small institutions and burden-reducing revisions to the existing FFIEC 041 and FFIEC 031 versions of the Call Report, which was finalized in December 2016.
In addition, as a framework for the actions it is undertaking, the FFIEC developed a set of guiding principles for use in evaluating potential additions and deletions of Call Report data items and other revisions to the Call Report. In general, data items collected in the Call Report must meet three guiding principles: (1) The data items serve a long-term regulatory or public policy purpose by assisting the FFIEC member entities in fulfilling their missions of ensuring the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the financial system and the protection of consumer financial rights, as well as agency-specific missions affecting national and state-chartered institutions; (2) the data items to be collected maximize practical utility and minimize, to the extent practicable and appropriate, burden on financial institutions; and (3) equivalent data items are not readily available through other means.
As discussed above, the Call Report schedules are being reviewed as part of the Full Review, conducted through a series of nine user surveys. The results of a portion of the surveys were evaluated in the development of this proposal. In addition, the results of certain surveys were re-evaluated and further burden-reducing changes were incorporated into this proposal. In conjunction with these evaluations, the agencies also considered comments received on their August 2016 Call Report proposal, feedback and streamlining suggestions received during their banker outreach activities as part of the community bank Call Report burden-reduction initiative, and comments regarding the Call Report received during the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act review conducted by the FFIEC and the agencies
The schedules reviewed in the portion of the user surveys evaluated in the development of this proposal include:
The schedules re-evaluated in the development of this proposal include:
Table 1 summarizes the changes already finalized as part of the FFIEC's community bank Call Report burden-reduction initiative.
Table 2 summarizes the additional burden-reducing proposed revisions to data items included in this notice. The proposed revisions are discussed in Section III. Detail for each affected data item is shown in Appendix B (FFIEC 051), Appendix C (FFIEC 041), and Appendix D (FFIEC 031).
The agencies are also proposing two revisions not related to the burden-reduction initiative. The first proposal would revise a method currently described in the Call Report instructions for determining past-due status for purposes of reporting certain loans and leases as past due in Schedule RC-N. The second proposal would revise portions of several Call Report schedules to incorporate the revised accounting for equity securities under
The proposed Call Report revisions would take effect March 31, 2018. Additional information on timing of the proposed revisions is provided in Section IV.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to consolidate securities brokerage and investment banking income items 5.d.(1) and 5.d.(2) into revised item 5.d.(1), consolidate insurance activities income items 5.d.(3) through 5.d.(5) into revised item 5.d.(2), remove securitization income item 5.g, and remove non-deductible interest expense Memorandum item 1 as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail provided by each of these existing items from smaller institutions eligible to file this version of the Call Report. Securitization income would be included within other noninterest income in item 5.l.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to remove Schedule RI-B, Part II, Memorandum item 4 on allowances for credit losses on purchased credit-impaired loans, as the agencies no longer need this item from smaller institutions eligible to file this version of the Call Report.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to remove the preprinted captions for items 1.f and 1.h, as few institutions report having these components of other noninterest income in amounts in excess of the existing reporting threshold for disclosing these components.
In addition, after reviewing the agencies' data needs along with industry comments and feedback requesting a higher threshold for disclosing components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense in Schedule RI-E, the agencies propose to increase the percentage portion of the existing threshold for reporting other noninterest income components in items 1.a through 1.j and other noninterest expense components in items 2.a through 2.p. The proposed threshold for disclosing components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense would be amounts greater than $100,000 that exceed seven percent of Schedule RI, item 5.l and item 7.d, respectively.
The agencies further propose to reduce the frequency of collection for items 1.a through 1.j and 2.a through 2.p from quarterly to annually as of December 31. This proposal is based on a comment received on the agencies' August 2016 Call Report proposal recommending a reduction in the reporting frequency of these items for smaller institutions.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to move the reporting of goodwill from existing item 10.a on the balance sheet to Schedule RC-M, item 2.b, and combine existing items 10.a and 10.b on Schedule RC into a single item 10. This would consolidate the reporting of goodwill and other intangible assets on Schedule RC into a single balance sheet item for intangible assets. This proposed revision to Schedule RC was requested by a commenter on the agencies' August 2016 Call Report proposal to facilitate institutions' reporting by making their Call Report processes more efficient and better focused.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to consolidate the reporting of an institution's holdings of U.S. government agency obligations, which are currently reported in items 2.a and 2.b, into a single item 2, and to consolidate the reporting of structured financial product holdings, which are currently reported in items 5.b.(1) through 5.b.(3), into a single item 5.b, as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail for these holdings in the Call Report. Banks would still be required to report amortized cost and fair value information in columns A through D for the proposed items 2 and 5.b. The agencies also propose to reduce the reporting frequency of the data on sales and transfers of held-to-maturity securities reported in Memorandum item 3 from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data items as frequently. This proposal is consistent with industry comments and feedback recommending a shorter reporting form for two of the four quarters each year. The agencies also propose to remove Memorandum items 6.a through 6.g, which provide detail on holding of structured financial products, as smaller institutions eligible to file this version of the Call Report generally do not hold these securities.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum items 7.a, 7.b, 8.a, and 12 (Columns A through C) from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these loan data in the Call Report as frequently. This proposal is consistent with industry comments and feedback recommending a shorter reporting form for two of the four quarters each year.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to remove item 7, average trading assets, as the agencies no longer need this quarterly average in the Call Report from institutions with domestic offices only and assets less than $1 billion.
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to remove items 1.b.(1), 1.b.(2), and 1.d, as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail for these types of unused commitments from smaller institutions eligible to file this version
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to consolidate current items 2.b and 2.c, which provide data on certain identifiable intangible assets, into a single item 2.c,
For the FFIEC 051, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum items 7 and 8 on nonaccrual assets and Memorandum items 9.a and 9.b on purchased credit-impaired loans from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data in the Call Report as frequently. In connection with this proposed change, Memorandum items 7 and 8 would collect data on additions to nonaccrual assets and nonaccrual asset sales, respectively, during the preceding six months rather than the preceding quarter as at present. This proposal is consistent with industry comments and feedback recommending a shorter reporting form for two of the four quarters each year.
The agencies propose to revise the scope of the FFIEC 041 to require all institutions with consolidated total assets of $100 billion or more to file the FFIEC 031 instead, regardless of whether an institution has any foreign offices. The agencies are proposing this change because institutions with consolidated total assets of $100 billion or more without foreign offices are considered to have a similar degree of complexity in their activities as institutions with consolidated total assets of $100 billion or more and foreign offices that currently file the FFIEC 031. This scope revision would affect a small number of institutions. Also, modifying the scope of these two versions of the Call Report in this manner would enable the agencies to remove a number of data items from the FFIEC 041 report that they no longer need to collect from institutions with consolidated total assets less than $100 billion.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to remove detail on trading revenues in Memorandum items 8.a through 8.e, as the agencies no longer need this level of detail in the Call Report from institutions with total assets less than $100 billion. The agencies would also remove Memorandum items 8.f through 8.h, which currently only apply to institutions with total assets of $100 billion or more. In addition, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum item 12 from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need this data in the Call Report as frequently.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to remove the preprinted captions for items 1.f and 1.h, as few institutions report having these components of other noninterest income in amounts in excess of the existing reporting threshold for disclosing these components.
In addition, after reviewing the agencies' data needs along with industry comments and feedback requesting a higher threshold for disclosing components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense in Schedule RI-E, the agencies propose to increase the percentage portion of the existing threshold for reporting other noninterest income components in items 1.a through 1.j and other noninterest expense components in items 2.a through 2.p. The proposed threshold for disclosing components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense would be amounts greater than $100,000 that exceed seven percent of Schedule RI, item 5.l and item 7.d, respectively.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to move the reporting of goodwill from existing item 10.a on the balance sheet to Schedule RC-M, item 2.b, and combine existing items 10.a and 10.b on Schedule RC into a single item 10. This would consolidate the reporting of goodwill and other intangible assets on Schedule RC into a single balance sheet item for intangible assets. This proposed revision to Schedule RC was requested by a commenter on the agencies' August 2016 Call Report proposal to facilitate institutions' reporting by making their Call Report processes more efficient and better focused.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to consolidate the reporting of an institution's holdings of U.S. government agency obligations, which are currently reported in items 2.a and 2.b, into a single item 2, and to consolidate the reporting of structured financial product holdings, which are currently reported in items 5.b.(1) through 5.b.(3), into a single item 5.b, as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail for these holdings in the Call Report. Institutions would still be required to report amortized cost and fair value information in columns A through D for the proposed items 2 and 5.b. The agencies also propose to reduce the reporting frequency of the data on sales and transfers of held-to-maturity securities reported in Memorandum
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum items 7.a, 7.b, 8.a, 8.b, 8.c, and 12.a through 12.d (columns A through C) from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these loan data in the Call Report as frequently. This proposal is consistent with industry comments and feedback recommending a shorter reporting form for two of the four quarters each year.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to change the reporting threshold for the overall schedule so that the schedule would be applicable to institutions with total trading assets of $10 million or more in any of the four preceding calendar quarters from the current threshold of $2 million in average trading assets over this same period. In addition, all institutions meeting the FDIC's definition of a large institution or a highly complex institution for deposit insurance assessment purposes would be required to complete Schedule RC-D. The agencies are proposing this reporting threshold change because they no longer need to collect this detailed data in the Call Report from institutions with a lesser amount of trading assets that are not large or highly complex institutions.
The agencies also propose to consolidate:
• Structured financial products in current items 5.a.(1) through 5.a.(3) into a single new item 5.a;
• Loan detail in current items 6.a.(1), 6.a.(2), 6.a.(4), and 6.a.(5) into a single new item 6.a.(2);
• Certain residential loan detail in current items 6.a.(3)(a) through 6.a.(3)(b)(2) into a single new item 6.a.(1);
• Consumer loan information in items 6.c.(1) through 6.c.(4) into a single item 6.c;
• Loan detail in current Memorandum items 1.a.(1), 1.a.(2), 1.a.(4), and 1.a.(5) into a single new Memorandum item 1.a.(2);
• Certain residential loan detail in current Memorandum items 1.a.(3)(a) through 1.a.(3)(b)(2) into a single new Memorandum item 1.a.(1); and
• Consumer loan information in Memoranda items 1.c.(1) through 1.c.(4) into a single new Memorandum item 1.c.
The agencies no longer need to collect the existing level of detail in the Call Report from those institutions that would be required to complete Schedule RC-D under its proposed revised reporting threshold. The agencies also propose to remove Memorandum items 2.a though 10, as the agencies no longer need to collect the current level of detail in the Call Report from institutions with less than $100 billion in total assets.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to revise the reporting threshold for item 7 on average trading assets. This item would only need to be completed by institutions with $10 million or more in total trading assets in any of the four preceding calendar quarters and by all institutions meeting the FDIC's definition of a “large institution” or a “highly complex institution” for deposit insurance assessment purposes. This proposed revised reporting threshold is consistent with the proposed threshold for completing Schedule RC-D discussed above. The agencies no longer need this quarterly average in the Call Report from institutions with less than $10 million in trading assets that are not large or highly complex institutions.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to consolidate items 1.a.(1) and 1.a.(2) into a single item 1.a.(1), as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail in the Call Report for these types of unused commitments. The agencies also propose to remove item 8 on spot foreign exchange contracts, as the agencies no longer need this information in the Call Report from all institutions with assets less than $100 billion. By removing item 8, spot foreign exchange contracts would be reported as part of an institution's all other off-balance sheet liabilities in item 9 of Schedule RC-L if the amount of such contracts exceeds 10 percent of the institution's total equity capital. Spot foreign exchange contracts would be disclosed as a component of the institution's all other off-balance sheet liabilities if the amount exceeds 25 percent of total equity capital.
The agencies also propose to remove columns B, C, and D, for items 16.a through 16.b.(8), and instead include these data on over-the-counter derivatives within column E for derivatives with all other counterparties. The agencies no longer need the separate detail in the Call Report provided by the disaggregated data on over-the-counter derivatives for monoline financial guarantors, hedge funds, and sovereign governments for institutions filing the FFIEC 041. The agencies also propose removing items 16.b.(4) though 16.b.(6) for the remaining columns A and E, and instead including the fair value of the three types of securities collateral currently reported in items 16.b.(4) through 16.b.(6) within the collateral amount reported in the respective columns of item 16.b.(7). The agencies no longer need the separate breakout of these types of collateral in the Call Report for institutions filing the FFIEC 041.
The agencies also propose to reduce the reporting frequency of items 1.b.(1), 1.b.(2), 11.a, and 11.b from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data in the Call Report as frequently. This proposal is consistent with industry comments and feedback recommending a shorter reporting form for two of the four quarters each year.
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to consolidate items 2.b and 2.c, which provide data on certain identifiable intangible assets, into a single item 2.c,
For the FFIEC 041, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum items 7 and 8 on nonaccrual assets and Memorandum items 9.a and 9.b (columns A through C) on purchased credit-impaired loans from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data in the Call Report as frequently. In connection with this proposed change, Memorandum items 7 and 8 would collect data on additions to nonaccrual assets and nonaccrual asset sales, respectively, during the preceding six months rather than the preceding quarter as at present. This proposal is consistent with industry comments and feedback recommending a shorter reporting form for two of the four quarters each year.
The agencies propose to revise the scope of the FFIEC 031 to require all institutions with consolidated total assets of $100 billion or more to file this form, regardless of whether an institution has any foreign offices. The agencies are proposing this change because institutions with consolidated total assets of $100 billion or more without foreign offices are considered to have a similar degree of complexity in their activities as institutions of this size with foreign offices that currently file the FFIEC 031.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to change the reporting threshold for reporting information on trading revenues in Memorandum items 8.a through 8.e. Currently, these items are completed by institutions that reported average trading assets of $2 million or more for any quarter of the preceding calendar year. The agencies propose to modify the reporting threshold for Memorandum items 8.a through 8.e to instruct that these items be completed by institutions that reported total trading assets of $10 million or more for any quarter of the preceding calendar year, as the agencies no longer need this level of detail in the Call Report from institutions with lower levels of trading assets. In addition, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum item 12 from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need this data in the Call Report as frequently.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to change the reporting threshold for completing this schedule. Currently, this schedule is required to be completed by an institution when its foreign office revenues, assets, or net income exceed 10 percent of consolidated total revenues, total assets, or net income. The agencies propose to add an additional threshold that an institution must have foreign office assets of $10 billion or more and also meet one of the three 10 percent tests before the schedule is required, as the agencies no longer need foreign office income data in the Call Report from institutions with a lesser amount of foreign office assets.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to remove the preprinted captions for items 1.f and 1.h, as few institutions report having these components of other noninterest income in amounts in excess of the existing reporting threshold for disclosing these components.
In addition, after reviewing the agencies' data needs along with industry comments and feedback requesting a higher threshold for disclosing components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense in Schedule RI-E, the agencies propose to increase the percentage portion of the existing threshold for reporting other noninterest income components in items 1.a through 1.j and other noninterest expense components in items 2.a through 2.p. The proposed threshold for disclosing components of other noninterest income and other noninterest expense would be amounts greater than $100,000 that exceed seven percent of Schedule RI, item 5.l, and item 7.d, respectively.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to move the reporting of goodwill from existing item 10.a on the balance sheet to Schedule RC-M, item 2.b (as discussed further below), and combine existing items 10.a and 10.b on Schedule RC into a single item 10. This would consolidate the reporting of goodwill and other intangible assets on Schedule RC into a single balance sheet item for intangible assets. This proposed revision to Schedule RC was requested by a commenter on the agencies' August 2016 Call Report proposal to facilitate institutions' reporting by making their Call Report processes more efficient and better focused.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to consolidate the reporting of an institution's holdings of U.S. government agency obligations, which are currently reported in items 2.a and 2.b, into a single item 2, and to consolidate the reporting of structured financial product holdings, which are currently reported in items 5.b.(1) through 5.b.(3), into a single item 5.b, as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail in the Call Report for these holdings. Institutions would still be required to report amortized cost and fair value information in columns A through D for the proposed items 2 and 5.b. The agencies also propose to reduce the reporting frequency of the data on sales and transfers of held-to-maturity securities reported in Memorandum item 3 from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data items as frequently in the Call Report. The agencies also propose to add a reporting threshold of $10 billion or more in total assets before institutions must complete Memorandum items 5.a though 6.g, columns A through D, as the agencies no longer need this information in the Call Report from institutions under this proposed threshold.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum items 7.a, 7.b, 8.a, 8.b, 8.c, and 12.a through 12.d (columns A through C) from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these loan data in the Call Report as frequently.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to change the reporting threshold for the overall schedule so that the schedule would be applicable to institutions with total trading assets of $10 million or more in any of the four preceding calendar quarters from the current threshold of $2 million or more in average trading assets over this same period. In addition, all institutions meeting the FDIC's definition of a large institution or a highly complex institution for deposit insurance assessment purposes would be required to complete Schedule RC-D. The agencies are proposing this reporting threshold change because they no longer need to collect the existing detailed data in the Call Report from institutions with a lesser amount of trading assets that are not large or highly complex institutions.
The agencies also propose to consolidate:
• Structured financial products in items 5.a.(1) through 5.a.(3) into a single item 5.a;
• Loan detail in current items 6.a.(1), 6.a.(2), 6.a.(4), and 6.a.(5) into a single new item 6.a.(2);
• Certain residential loan detail in current items 6.a.(3)(a) through 6.a.(3)(b)(2) into a single new item 6.a.(1);
• Consumer loan information in items 6.c.(1) through 6.c.(4) into a single item 6.c;
• Loan detail in Memorandum items 1.a.(1), 1.a.(2), 1.a.(4), and 1.a.(5) into a single new Memorandum item 1.a.(2);
• Certain residential loan detail in Memorandum items 1.a.(3)(a) through 1.a.(3)(b)(2) into a single new Memorandum item 1.a.(1); and
• Consumer loan information in Memorandum items 1.c.(1) through 1.c.(4) into a single new Memorandum item 1.c.
The agencies no longer need to collect the current level of detail in the Call Report from those institutions that would be required to complete Schedule RC-D under its proposed revised reporting threshold.
The agencies also propose to remove column B (domestic offices) for all items on Schedule RC-D, except for items 12 and 15 on total trading assets and total trading liabilities in domestic offices, respectively, which will be moved to Schedule RC-H, Selected Balance Sheet Items for Domestic Offices. In addition, the agencies would replace the detailed data on loans held for trading in domestic offices that is reported in items 6.a.(1) through 6.d, column B, of Schedule RC-D with a single new item for total loans held for trading in domestic offices that would be added to Schedule RC-H. The agencies propose these changes as they no longer need separately reported data in the Call Report on assets and liabilities held for trading in domestic offices other than for the three items on total trading assets, total trading liabilities, and total loans held for trading in domestic offices that would be reported in Schedule RC-H. Institutions would continue to report amounts in Schedule RC-D only for the consolidated entity, which they currently report in column A.
In addition, the agencies propose to add a reporting threshold of $10 billion or more in total trading assets before an institution would be required to complete Memorandum items 2.a though 5.f and 7.a through 10, as the agencies no longer need this level of detail in the Call Report from institutions with a lesser amount of trading assets. The agencies also propose to remove Memorandum item 6, as the agencies no longer need this information.
For the FFIEC 031, in connection with removing the separate detail for trading assets and liabilities in domestic offices from Schedule RC-D, the agencies propose to retain and relocate selected data items to Schedule RC-H, Selected Balance Sheet Items for Domestic Offices. As noted above, the agencies propose relocating total trading assets and total trading liabilities in domestic offices from Schedule RC-D, column B, items 12 and 15, to Schedule RC-H, new items 19 and 20, respectively. Also, the agencies propose to aggregate all loans held for trading in domestic offices currently reported on Schedule RC-D, column B, items 6.a through 6.d (including all subitems), into a single new item, Schedule RC-H, item 21. These three items would be completed by institutions that reported total trading assets of $10 million or more in any of the four preceding calendar quarters and by all institutions meeting the FDIC's definition of a large or highly complex institution for deposit insurance assessment purposes. The agencies believe relocating this data from Schedule RC-D to Schedule RC-H will improve efficiency by consolidating additional domestic office information on Schedule RC-H.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to add a reporting threshold for item 7 on average trading assets. This item would only need to be completed by institutions with $10 million or more in total trading assets in any of the four preceding calendar quarters and by all institutions meeting the FDIC's definition of a “large institution” or a “highly complex institution” for deposit insurance assessment purposes. This proposed new reporting threshold is consistent with the proposed revised threshold for completing Schedule RC-D discussed above. The agencies no longer need this information in the Call Report each quarter from institutions with less than $10 million in trading assets that are not large or highly complex institutions.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to consolidate items 1.a.(1) and 1.a.(2) into a single item 1.a.(1), as the agencies no longer need the current level of detail for these types of unused commitments. The agencies also propose to remove column B for items 16.a through 16.b.(8), and instead include these data on over-the-counter derivatives within column E for derivatives with all other counterparties. The agencies no longer need the separate detail in the Call Report provided by the disaggregated data on over-the-counter derivatives for monoline financial guarantors in column B. The agencies also propose to reduce the reporting frequency of items 1.b.(1), 1.b.(2), 11.a, and 11.b from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data in the Call Report as frequently.
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to consolidate items 2.b and 2.c, which provide data on certain intangible assets, into a single item 2.c,
For the FFIEC 031, the agencies propose to reduce the reporting frequency of Memorandum items 7 and 8 on nonaccrual assets and Memorandum items 9.a and 9.b on purchased credit-impaired loans from quarterly to semiannual (June 30 and December 31), as the agencies no longer need these data in the Call Report as frequently. In connection with this proposed change, Memorandum items 7 and 8 would collect data on additions to nonaccrual assets and nonaccrual asset sales, respectively, during the preceding six months rather than the preceding quarter as at present.
Under the current Call Report instructions, closed-end installment loans, amortizing loans secured by real estate, and any other loans and lease financing receivables with payments scheduled monthly are to be reported as past due in Schedule RC-N, Past Due and Nonaccrual Loans, Leases, and Other Assets, when the borrower is in arrears two or more monthly payments. This has been interpreted to mean that a loan is to be reported as past due if two monthly payments have not been received by the close of business on the due date of the second monthly payment. Similarly, the Call Report instructions provide that open-end credit such as credit cards, check credit, and other revolving credit plans are to be reported as past due when the customer has not made the minimum payment for two or more billing cycles. The instructions also provide that, at an institution's option, loans and leases with payments scheduled monthly may be reported as past due when one scheduled payment is due and unpaid for 30 days or more.
The agencies note there is an existing widely used industry standard, known as the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) method, which provides that loans with payments scheduled monthly become 30 days past due if a monthly payment is not received by the end of the day immediately preceding the loan's next due date. The agencies understand that the MBA method is used by most major mortgage data repositories, including the three major credit bureaus and two major mortgage loan data processing service bureaus used by institutions. The MBA method is also used by reporting forums such as the MBA, McDash Analytics, and the OCC Mortgage Metrics Reports.
Therefore, to promote the use of a consistent standard in the industry and reduce the burden for certain institutions calculating past-due loans under two methods,
The following are examples of the application of this proposed revised past due definition:
• A monthly loan payment is due April 1. With no payment received by the end of the day on April 30, which is the day immediately preceding the loan's next payment due date, the loan would be considered 30 days past due for reporting purposes as of April 30. With no monthly payment received by May 31, the loan would be 61 days past due as of May 31. With no monthly payment received by June 30, the loan would be 91 days past due as June 30. For the June 30 Call Report, this loan would be reported in the 90 days or more past due category (unless it had been placed in nonaccrual status).
• A monthly loan payment is due April 15. With no payment received by April 30, the loan is not a full month past due, so it would not be considered past due for regulatory reporting purposes until May 14, which is the day immediately preceding the loan's next payment due date. The loan will be 46 days past due if payment has not been received as of May 31 and 76 days past due if payment has not been received as of June 30. For the June 30 Call Report, this loan would be reported in the 30 through 89 days past due category (unless it had been placed in nonaccrual status).
The agencies believe that aligning the Call Report method for determining past due status with an accepted industry standard for determining past due status (
The agencies invite comment on any difficulties that institutions would encounter in applying this proposed modified past due definition beginning as of the March 31, 2018, report date.
In January 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” In its summary of this ASU, the FASB described how one of the main provisions of the ASU differs from current U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as follows:
The amendments in this Update supersede the guidance to classify equity securities with readily determinable fair values into different categories (that is, trading or available-for-sale) and require equity securities (including other ownership interests, such as partnerships, unincorporated joint ventures, and limited liability companies) to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value recognized through net income. An entity's equity investments that are accounted for under the equity method of accounting or result in consolidation of an investee are not included within the scope of this Update.
The FASB further stated in the summary that “an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not
Institutions must apply ASU 2016-01 for Call Report purposes in accordance with the effective dates set forth in the ASU. For institutions that are public business entities, as defined in U.S. GAAP, ASU 2016-01 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. For example, an institution with a calendar year fiscal year that is a public business entity must begin to apply ASU 2016-01 in its Call Report for March 31, 2018. For all other institutions, the ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. For example, an institution with a calendar year fiscal year that is not a public business entity must begin to apply ASU 2016-01 in its Call Report for December 31, 2019.
One outcome of the change in accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 is the elimination of the concept of available-for-sale (AFS) equity securities, which are measured at fair value on the balance sheet with changes in fair value recognized through other comprehensive income. At present, the historical cost and fair value of AFS equity securities,
In addition, the total fair value of AFS securities is reported in Schedule RC-R, Part II, for risk-weighting purposes under the agencies' regulatory capital rules. This fair value amount is reported in Schedule RC-R, Part II, item 2.b, column A, except for the fair value of those AFS securities that qualify as securitization exposures, which is reported in Schedule RC-R, Part II, item 9.b, column A. To the extent appropriate under the regulatory capital rules, adjustments to the fair values reported in column A of items 2.b and 9.b are reported in column B. The adjusted amount in item 2.b is then allocated to the appropriate risk-weight category in columns C through N. The adjusted amount of AFS securitization exposures in item 9.b is reported by risk-weight category in column Q or by risk-weighted asset amount in column T or U based on the risk-weighting approach or approaches applied by an institution.
At present, the accumulated balance of the unrealized gains (losses) on AFS equity securities, net of applicable income taxes, that have been recognized through other comprehensive income is included in accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), which is reported in the equity capital section of the Call Report balance sheet in Schedule RC, item 26.b. With the elimination of AFS equity securities on the effective date of ASU 2016-01, the net unrealized gains (losses) on these securities that had been included in AOCI will be reclassified (transferred) from AOCI into the retained earnings component of equity capital, which is reported on the Call Report balance sheet in Schedule RC, item 26.a. After the effective date, changes in the fair value of (
The effect of the elimination of AFS equity securities as a distinct asset category upon institutions' implementation of ASU 2016-01 carries over to the agencies' regulatory capital rules. Under these rules, institutions that are eligible to and have elected to make the AOCI opt-out election deduct net unrealized losses on AFS equity securities from common equity tier 1 capital and include 45 percent of pretax net unrealized gains on AFS equity securities in tier 2 capital. For purposes of reporting regulatory capital components and ratios in the Call Report, the deduction of these net unrealized losses is currently effected through the combination of Schedule RC-R, Part I, items 9.a, “LESS: Net unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale securities,” and 9.b, “LESS: Net unrealized loss on available-for-sale preferred stock classified as an equity security under GAAP and available-for-sale equity exposures.” The inclusion of 45 percent of pretax net unrealized gains in tier 2 capital currently occurs through the reporting of this percentage of an institution's gains in Schedule RC-R, Part I, item 31, “Unrealized gains on available-for-sale preferred stock classified as an equity security under GAAP and available-for-sale equity exposures includable in tier 2 capital.” When ASU 2016-01 takes effect and the classification of equity securities as AFS is eliminated for accounting and reporting purposes under U.S. GAAP, the concept of unrealized gains and losses on AFS equity securities will likewise cease to exist.
Another outcome of the change in accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 is that equity securities and other equity investments without readily determinable fair values that are within the scope of ASU 2016-01 and are not held for trading must be measured at fair value through net income, rather than at cost (less impairment, if any), unless the measurement election described above is applied to individual equity investments. In general, institutions currently report their holdings of such equity securities without readily determinable fair values as a category of other assets in Call Report Schedule RC-F, item 4. The total amount of an institution's other assets is reported on the Call Report balance sheet in Schedule RC, item 11.
At present, AFS equity securities and equity investments without readily determinable fair values are included in the quarterly averages reported in Schedule RC-K. Institutions report the quarterly average for “All other securities” in item 4 of this schedule and this average reflects AFS equity securities at historical cost. A quarterly average for total assets is reported in item 9 of Schedule RC-K. Among its uses, average total assets serves as the starting point for determining the denominator for the tier 1 leverage ratio under the agencies' regulatory capital rules. The quarterly average for total assets currently reflects AFS equity securities at the lower of cost or fair
Finally, institutions with foreign offices report the fair value of their AFS equity securities in domestic offices and the historical cost of their equity securities without readily determinable fair values in domestic offices in Schedule RC-H, items 16 and 18, respectively, of the FFIEC 031 Call Report. The domestic office holdings of these equity securities are components of the AFS equity securities and equity securities without readily determinable fair values reported on a consolidated basis in Schedule RC-B, item 7, and Schedule RC-F, item 4, respectively.
The agencies have considered the changes to the accounting for equity investments under ASU 2016-01 and the effect of these changes on the manner in which data on equity securities and other equity investments is currently reported in the Call Report. The agencies also note that, because of the different effective dates for ASU 2016-01 for public business entities and all other entities, as well as the varying fiscal years across the population of institutions that file Call Reports, the period over which institutions will be implementing this ASU ranges from the first quarter of 2018 through the fourth quarter of 2020. December 31, 2020, will be the first quarter-end Call Report date as of which all institutions would be required to prepare their Call Reports in accordance with ASU 2016-01. As a result, the agencies are proposing revisions to the reporting of information on equity securities and other equity investments in response to the ASU that would be introduced in the Call Report effective March 31, 2018, but would not be fully phased in until the Call Report for December 31, 2020. In developing these proposed Call Report revisions, the agencies have followed the guiding principles for evaluating potential additions and deletions of Call Report data items and other revisions to the Call Report identified in Section I above. In following these principles, the agencies have sought to limit the number of data items being added to the Call Report to address the changes in accounting for equity securities and other equity investments.
The proposed Call Report revisions related to equity securities are as follows:
(1) To provide transparency to the effect of unrealized gains and losses on equity securities not held for trading on an institution's net income during the year-to-date reporting period in Schedule RI, Income Statement, and to clearly distinguish these gains and losses from the rest of an institution's income (loss) from its continuing operations, Schedule RI, item 8, would be revised effective March 31, 2018, by creating new items 8.a, “Income (loss) before unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading, applicable income taxes, and discontinued operations,” and 8.b, “Unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading.” In addition to unrealized holding gains (losses) during the year-to-date reporting period on such equity securities with readily determinable fair values, institutions also would report in proposed new item 8.b the year-to-date changes in the carrying amounts of equity investments without readily determinable fair values not held for trading (
(2) On the FFIEC 031, certain institutions with foreign offices must complete Schedule RI-D, Income from Foreign Offices. As stated in the instructions for Schedule RI-D, “[f]or the most part, the income and expense items in Schedule RI-D mirror categories of income and expense reported in Schedule RI.” However, Schedule RI-D collects much less detail on an institution's income and expense than Schedule RI. The instructions for Schedule RI would be revised effective March 31, 2018, to indicate that, for institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01, the amount of unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading in foreign offices that is included in Schedule RI, item 8.b, should be reported in Schedule RI-D, item 5, “Realized gains (losses) on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities in foreign offices.” Effective December 31, 2020, the caption for item 5 would be revised to “Realized gains (losses) on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities and unrealized holding gains (losses) on equity securities not held for trading in foreign offices.”
(3) In Schedule RC, Balance Sheet, a new item 2.c, “Equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading,” would be added effective March 31, 2018. From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 2.c and the reporting form for Schedule RC would include guidance stating that item 2.c is to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave item 2.c blank. During this period, the instructions for Schedule RC, item 2.b, “Available-for-sale securities,” would explain that institutions that have adopted ASU 2016 01 should include only debt securities in item 2.b. Effective December 31, 2020, the caption for item 2.b would be revised to “Available-for-sale debt securities” and all institutions would report their holdings of equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading in item 2.c.
(4) In Schedule RC-B, Securities, item 7, “Investments in mutual funds and other equity securities with readily determinable fair values,” would be removed effective December 31, 2020. From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 7 and the reporting form for Schedule RC-B would include guidance stating that item 7 is to be completed only by institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave item 2.c blank.
(5) In Schedule RC-F, Other Assets, the caption for item 4 would be changed from “Equity securities that DO NOT have readily determinable fair values” to “Equity investments without readily determinable fair values” effective March 31, 2018. The types of equity securities and other equity investments currently reported in item 4 would continue to be reported in this item. However, after the effective date of ASU 2016-01 for an institution, the securities the institution reports in item 4 would
(6) In Schedule RC-H, Selected Balance Sheet Items for Domestic Offices, of the FFIEC 031, item 16, “Investments in mutual funds and other equity securities with readily determinable fair values,” would be removed effective December 31, 2020, and the caption for item 17 would be changed from “Total held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities (sum of items 10 through 16)” to “Total held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities (sum of items 10 through 15).” From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 16 and the reporting form for Schedule RC-H would include guidance stating that item 16 is to be completed only by institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave item 16 blank. In addition, effective March 31, 2018, item 18, “Equity securities that do not have readily determinable fair values,” would be replaced by item 18.a, “Equity securities with readily determinable fair values,” and item 18.b, “Equity investments without readily determinable fair values.” From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 18.a and the reporting form for Schedule RC-H would include guidance stating that item 18.a is to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01. Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 would leave item 18.a blank. The types of equity securities and other equity investments without readily determinable fair values that are currently reported in item 18 would be reported in item 18.b.
(7) In Schedule RC-K, Quarterly Averages, the caption for item 4, “All other securities,” would be changed to “All other debt securities and equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading purposes” effective March 31, 2018. From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 4 and the reporting form for Schedule RC-K would include guidance indicating that, for institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01, the quarterly average for equity securities with readily determinable fair values should be based on fair value and, for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01, the quarterly average for such equity securities (
• Institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should reflect the quarterly average for equity securities with readily determinable fair values at fair value and the quarterly average for equity securities without readily determinable fair values at their balance sheet carrying amounts (
• Institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01 should reflect the quarterly average for equity securities with readily determinable fair values at the lower of cost or fair value and the quarterly average for equity securities without readily determinable fair values at historical cost.
Then, effective December 31, 2020, the instructions for item 9 and the Schedule RC-K reporting form would indicate that, for equity securities not held for trading, the quarterly average for total assets should reflect such securities with readily determinable fair values at fair value and those without readily determinable fair values at their balance sheet carrying amounts.
(8) In Schedule RC-Q on the FFIEC 041 and FFIEC 031, the caption for item 1, “Available-for-sale securities,” would be changed to “Available-for-sale debt securities and equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading purposes” effective March 31, 2018. From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 1 and the reporting form for Schedule RC-Q would include guidance stating that, for institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01, the amount reported in item 1, column A, must equal the sum of Schedule RC, items 2.b and 2.c, and for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01, the amount reported in item 1, column A, must equal Schedule RC, item 2.b. Effective December 31, 2020, this guidance would indicate that the amount reported in item 1, column A, must equal the sum of Schedule RC, items 2.b and 2.c.
(9) In Schedule RC-R, Part I, Regulatory Capital Components and Ratios, the instructions for item 9.a and the Schedule RC-R reporting form would include guidance from March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, stating that, for institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01, item 9.a should include net unrealized gains (losses) on AFS debt and equity securities and, for institutions that have adopted the ASU, item 9.a should include net unrealized gains (losses) on AFS debt securities. During this same period, the instructions for item 9.b and the Schedule RC-R reporting form would include guidance indicating that item 9.b is to be completed only by institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01. Effective December 31, 2020, item 9.b would be removed and the caption for item 9.a would be revised to “LESS: Net unrealized gains (losses) on available-for-sale debt securities.” In addition, from March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for Schedule RC-R, Part I, item 31, and the Schedule RC-R reporting form would include guidance indicating that item 31 is to be completed only by institutions that have not adopted ASU 2016-01. During this period, institutions that have adopted the ASU would leave item 31 blank. Then, effective December 31, 2020, item 31 would be removed from Schedule RC-R, Part I.
(9) In Schedule RC-R, Part II, Risk-Weighted Assets, revisions would be made to item 2 that correspond to those made to Schedule RC, item 2. A new item 2.c, “Equity securities with readily determinable fair values not held for trading,” would be added to Schedule RC-R, Part II, effective March 31, 2018. Applicable risk weights for new item 2.c would be 100 percent, 250 percent, 300 percent, and 600 percent; amounts also could be reported in columns R and S. From March 31, 2018, through September 30, 2020, the instructions for item 2.c and the reporting form for Schedule RC-R, Part II, would include guidance stating that item 2.c is to be completed only by institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01. During the same period, the instructions for Schedule RC-R, Part II, item 2.b, “Available-for-sale securities,” would explain that institutions that have adopted ASU 2016-01 should include only debt securities in this item. Effective December 31, 2020, the caption for item 2.b would be revised to “Available-for-sale debt securities” and the 250 percent, 300 percent, and 600 percent risk weights plus columns R and S would be removed from item 2.b.
The proposed changes in this notice would be effective beginning with the March 31, 2018, Call Report. The agencies are considering whether some or all of the changes proposed in Sections III.A through III.C instead should become effective with the
For the March 31, 2018, report date or any earlier effective date, as applicable, institutions may provide reasonable estimates for any new or revised Call Report data item initially required to be reported as of that date for which the requested information is not readily available. The specific wording of the captions for the new or revised Call Report data items discussed in this proposal and the numbering of these data items should be regarded as preliminary.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comment is specifically invited on:
(a) Whether institutions prefer the agencies' approach to implement all the revisions as of March 31, 2018, or whether institutions would prefer an earlier implementation date for some or all of the revisions proposed in Sections III.A through III.C of this notice;
(b) Whether the proposed revisions to the collections of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(c) The accuracy of the agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections as they are proposed to be revised, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(d) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(e) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(f) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Schedule RI-D collects data on income from foreign offices. Collectively, the data are used in country and currency risk analyses to monitor the level, trend, quality and sustainability of the income component of foreign offices. These data help support a variety of examination activities that include, but are not limited to, earnings and yield analysis, asset securitizations, core assessment, price risk, and trading. Quarterly data also improve the offsite monitoring of trading and asset management activities. Data on investment banking, advisory, brokerage, and underwriting fees and commissions are used to track the global asset management activities of institutions with foreign offices. The global presence of these activities adds to the complexity of the asset management business conducted by financial institutions and this information is continually monitored to detect potential shifts in business models. It also serves as one component of measurement of the degree of global interconnectedness and systemic risk.
Schedule RI-E collects explanations for items that significantly contribute to the total amounts reported for other noninterest income and other noninterest expense. Since other noninterest income makes up almost half of total noninterest income and other noninterest expense makes up approximately 40 percent of noninterest expense on an aggregate basis for all filers of the Call Report, data on the composition of each of these income statement data items is essential to understanding what is driving the level of and changes over time in these data items at individual institutions. The stratification of the information in this schedule allows for identification of potential unusual sources of changes in earnings that affect trend analyses. This information is particularly important for identifying losses of an unusual or nonrecurring nature when an institution is in a stressed condition, which was evident during the recent financial crisis. This stratified noninterest income and expense information continues to be critical in understanding the causes of swings in an institution's profitability.
Schedule RI-E also collects descriptive information on discontinued operations, significant adjustments to the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL), accounting changes and error corrections, and certain capital transactions with stockholders. These data items provide the agencies and their examiners better insight on factors driving changes in net income and the ALLL (due to sources other than provisions, charge-offs, and recoveries), along with nonrecurring types of changes in institutions' equity capital.
The detailed breakdown of components of other noninterest income in excess of the Schedule RI-E reporting threshold is essential to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) understanding of the viability of institutions' offerings of consumer services regulated by the CFPB. This information provides unique insights into institutions' reliance on key revenue streams that can impact consumer access to and the availability of services. These streams include bank and credit card interchange, income and fees from automated teller machines, and institution-described components of other noninterest income. This information also helps the CFPB monitor trends in the consumer marketplace. Similarly, the detailed breakdown of other noninterest expense facilitates the CFPB's ability to conduct statutorily-required cost analyses for rulemakings and other policy endeavors.
Information collected on Schedule RC-B is essential for assessment of liquidity risk, market risk, interest rate risk, and credit risk. Specifically, information on held-to-maturity, available-for-sale, and pledged securities is critical for analysis of the institution's ability to manage short-term financial obligations without negatively impacting capital or income (liquidity risk), and risk of loss due to market movements (market risk). Maturity and repricing information on debt securities collected in the Memorandum items on Schedule RC-B, together with the maturity and repricing information collected in other schedules for other types of assets and liabilities, is critical for the assessment of the risk to an institution from changes in interest rates (interest rate risk), and also contributes to the evaluation of liquidity. Thus, the maturity and repricing information collected throughout the Call Report also aids in evaluating the strategies institutions take to mitigate liquidity and interest rate risks. Liquidity and interest rate risk indicators that are calculated by agency models from an institution's Call Report data and exceed specified parameters or change significantly between examinations are red flags that call for timely examiner off-site review.
In this regard, the reported amount of debt securities with a remaining maturity of one year or less is a key input into the calculation of an institution's short-term assets that, when analyzed in conjunction with non-core funding data, can indicate the extent to which the institution is relying on short-term funding to fund longer-term assets, which presents an exposure to liquidity risk. Further, liquidity risk inputs into agency models that vary by type of security provide examiners the ability to customize and apply liquidity stress tests. Extensive back testing has shown that the liquidity risk inputs for securities contain substantial forward-looking information by which to ascertain the likelihood that an institution would be able to avoid significant liquidity problems in a stressed environment.
As another example, agency models that consider both the amortized cost and fair value of held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities reported in Schedule RC-B are used for off-site monitoring of interest rate risk to identify individual institutions that
The institution's risk profile in these areas is considered during pre-examination planning to determine the appropriate scoping and staffing for examinations. For example, the quarterly reporting of the Call Report information on held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities also aids in the identification of low-risk areas prior to on-site examinations, allowing the agencies to improve the allocation of their supervisory resources and increase the efficiency of supervisory assessments, which reduces the scope of examinations in these areas, thereby reducing regulatory burden.
Information on the amortized cost and fair value of the securities portfolio allows for measurement of depreciation/appreciation, which is important for assessing the potential impact that unrealized gains and losses may have on earnings and liquidity. Unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale equity securities and, for certain institutions, unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale debt securities are an integral input into regulatory capital calculations. Furthermore, because the amount of unrealized gains and losses on both held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities is an indicator of risk in the debt securities portfolio, it also is a key factor in examiners' qualitative assessments of capital adequacy.
Data showing significant depreciation in specific types of securities not issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies can signal an institution's failure to properly evaluate the existence of other-than-temporary impairments arising from credit losses and other factors. Similarly, data on year-to-date sales and transfers of held-to-maturity securities is a basis for off-site or on-site follow-up by examiners to determine whether the reasons for these transactions are acceptable under U.S. GAAP or have resulted in the tainting of this securities portfolio. In addition, the reporting of debt securities by security type is important to identify concentrations in higher risk types of investments, which may have greater liquidity and/or credit risk than other types of securities. Information on investments in securities issued by states and political subdivisions in the United States is used by many state regulatory agencies as a starting point for monitoring compliance with certain state municipal investment regulations. The amortized cost and fair value of held-to-maturity and available-for-sale debt securities, respectively, for certain types of securities as well as the fair value of all U.S. Treasury and Government agency securities are used in the risk-based premium deposit insurance pricing methodology for large institutions and highly complex institutions.
Schedule RC-D collects information on trading activity from institutions with more than a limited amount of trading assets in recent quarters. Trading assets are segmented into detailed securities and loan categories. Trading liabilities separately cover liability for short positions and other trading liabilities. The schedule's Memorandum items request additional information, including the unpaid principal balance of loans and the fair value of structured financial products and asset-backed securities held for trading purposes.
The information contained in Schedule RC-D is used to assess the overall composition of the institution's trading portfolio and also provides detailed information to evaluate the liquidity, credit, and interest rate risk within the trading portfolio, which impacts the overall risk profile of the institution. Data on the types of trading assets held by an institution—such as U.S. Treasury securities versus structured financial products versus commercial and industrial loans, for example—serve as a barometer of the relative levels of these risks in the trading portfolio. Regarding liquidity risk, the higher the level of more liquid assets an institution has within its trading portfolio, the more financial flexibility it has if faced with uncertainties or unfavorable market conditions. If an institution has a low level of liquid assets within its trading portfolio, this impacts its ability to rapidly adjust its holdings in response to adverse market movements. Information on the volume and composition of trading assets and how it has changed over recent quarters also can provide insight into an institution's trading strategies and its views on market trends. The assessment of trading portfolio composition and risks enters into pre-examination planning to determine the appropriate scoping and staffing for examinations of institutions engaged in trading activities.
Furthermore, data on securities and loans held for trading are combined with data on securities and loans held for investment, as reported in Schedule RC-B and Schedule RC-C, Part I, to benchmark weekly loan and security data collected by the Board from a sample of both small and large institutions. These weekly data are used to estimate weekly measures of extension of credit for the banking sector as a whole to provide a more timely input for purposes of monitoring the macroeconomy.
Information on mortgage-backed securities and mortgage loans held for trading assisted the CFPB's efforts to develop required estimates for various Title XIV mortgage reform rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203). Going forward, data items from this schedule and Schedules RC-B and RC-C, Part I, are critical for continuous monitoring of the mortgage market. The CFPB uses these items to understand the intricacies of the mortgage market that are essential to assessing institutional participation in regulated consumer financial services markets and to assess regulatory impact associated with recent and proposed policies, as required by that agency's statutory mandate.
Average quarterly asset and liability information is essential to the ability of the FFIEC member entities to more appropriately evaluate the performance of individual institutions. Quarterly average data from Schedule RC-K also provide important information at the industry level for policy review at FFIEC member entities.
The average data reported in Schedule RC-K are used in conjunction with income and expense information from Schedule RI to calculate yields and costs for the corresponding categories of assets and liabilities. These ratios are presented in the Uniform Bank Performance Report (UBPR) where they are used as a tool by examiners, both on- and off-site, to monitor and evaluate trends related to an institution's earnings and capital. These ratios also help the agencies identify trends across the banking industry. Important ratios derived from quarterly average data include, but are not limited to, earnings ratios (
The granularity of the data in Schedule RC-K assists in analyzing performance within a bank's asset and liability portfolios. Quarterly average balances allow for better analyses of trends in the composition of an institution's assets and liabilities than is possible from comparisons of quarter-end data, which may be affected by fluctuations related to seasonality or abnormal levels of activity at period-end. The detailed average data used to calculate the yield on specific types of interest-earning assets helps examination teams understand the impact of credit quality on the earnings performance of particular loan portfolios. Where an institution's yields on particular types of loans exceed those of its peers, this warrants examiner scrutiny to determine whether this outcome is a result of the institution's origination or purchase of lower credit quality loans. In addition, the data on the cost of funds by funding type is important in assessing the funding mix at the institution level for oversight purposes. Higher costs for particular types of deposits or other liabilities compared to these costs at an institution's peers also warrants examiner review to determine whether the institution is making greater use of more volatile non-core funding sources. The yield on interest-earning assets and cost of funds also gives insight into the effectiveness of an institution's plans and initiatives related to asset/liability mix, liquidity, and interest rate risk strategies and their resulting impact on earnings. These performance ratios are essential to the consideration of an institution's earnings during pre-examination planning to determine the appropriate scoping of this area, particularly because earnings is
Schedule RC-L provides data on off-balance sheet assets and liabilities as well as derivatives contracts. The quarterly reporting of all off-balance sheet items in the Call Report is required by law (12 U.S.C. 1831n(a)(3)(C)). The most recent financial crisis emphasized the importance of identifying and monitoring significant exposures arising from any contingent or off-balance sheet liabilities and the effect of these exposures on an institution's overall risk profile. The granular data on components of off-balance sheet items, as well as derivatives data, assist the banking agencies in ensuring the safety and soundness of financial institutions through both off-site and on-site monitoring of a variety of potential risks. These risks include, but are not limited to, liquidity risk, credit risk, interest rate risk (IRR), and foreign exchange risk. The data on Schedule RC-L also is essential for the examination scoping process, which begins during pre-examination planning. The data offer insight into outliers and exceptions, which provide information to examiners on areas on which to focus during their on-site examinations.
The data on Schedule RC-L on the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 is useful in determining an institution's potential exposure to losses from derivatives activities. It is also useful in identifying the extent to which an institution may be engaging in hedging strategies that will affect its future earnings prospects. An excessive and/or inappropriate credit derivative position could have a substantial and immediate detrimental impact to an institution's liquidity, interest rate risk, earnings, or capital adequacy. For institutions with material volumes of derivatives as reported on Schedule RC-L, examiners can assess whether the institution's management has the appropriate expertise and policies in place to manage and control the risks associated with its derivatives activities and whether the institution's capital levels are commensurate with its risk exposure. This is particularly true with respect interest rate derivatives, which are the most widely held derivatives, and are commonly used in the management of interest rate risk. Schedule RC-L provides a granular perspective about the types of interest rate contracts an institution has entered into, which helps an examiner focus on assessing how effectively management uses the various types of interest rate contracts in its derivatives portfolio to hedge its exposure to interest rate risk. Also, examiners investigate fluctuations in the fair values of an institution's holdings of derivatives to determine if there are changes in the institution's risk appetite as set by the board of directors and implemented by management.
The unused commitments information on Schedule RC-L is essential to examiners, especially during periods of financial distress when borrowers rely increasingly on drawing down their lines of credit and unused commitments as a source of funding. The unused commitments data enables examiners to identify whether growth in unused commitments over time is at a manageable level and permit assessments of the potential impact, if such commitments are funded, on the credit quality of the related loan categories, as well as on the liquidity and on the capital position of an institution. Also, institutions may have a concentration in a particular loan category, which may not be readily apparent from balance sheet data until unused commitments to borrowers in this category are actually funded, which dictates that examiners consider the reported amounts on unused commitments by loan category to ensure they identify and assess the concentration risk. Financial and performance standby letters of credit also present liquidity and credit risk considerations for examiners, which also may be greater during periods of financial distress when the counterparties may be more likely to fail to perform as required under the terms of the underlying contract.
The derivatives information on Schedule RC-L is also one of the primary sources that feeds into a derivatives quarterly report that is used to report on bank trading and derivative activities. This public report issued by the OCC helps the banking agencies' on-site examiners at the largest banks to continuously evaluate the credit, market, operational, reputation, and compliance risks of bank derivative activities.
Schedule RC-M collects various types of information. Section 7(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(k)) authorizes the federal banking agencies to require the reporting and public disclosure of information concerning extensions of credit by an institution to its executive officers and principal shareholders and their related interests. Federal Reserve Board Regulation O (12 CFR 215), which has been made applicable to all institutions, imposes an aggregate lending limit on extensions of credit to insiders (executive officers, directors, principal shareholders, and their related interests) and, in general, requires an institution to make available the names of its executive officers and principal shareholders to whom the institution had outstanding as of the end of the latest previous quarter aggregate extensions of credit that, when aggregated with all other outstanding extensions of credit to such person and their related interests, equaled or exceeded the lesser of 5 percent of capital and unimpaired surplus or $500,000. The data collected in Schedule RC-M on extensions of credit to the reporting institution's insiders generally aligns with these requirements and assists the agencies in monitoring compliance with the insider lending regulations between examinations and determining whether supervisory follow-up is warranted when material increases in insider lending are identified.
Because identifiable intangible assets are deducted from regulatory capital or are subject to regulatory capital limits and deducted amounts are not risk weighted, the reporting of these amounts aids in validating an institution's regulatory capital calculations in Schedule RC-R. In addition to their treatment under the regulatory capital rules, mortgage servicing assets in particular are complex in nature and present liquidity risk and interest rate risk and their value is affected by the credit risk of the underlying serviced assets. Mortgage servicing assets also contribute to the level of an institution's mortgage prepayment exposure. When the level of this exposure rises above a specified benchmark at an individual institution, this exposure may warrant additional attention by examiners between examinations and necessitate greater scrutiny of management's prepayment assumptions in its own interest rate risk model during examinations or visitations.
The components of other real estate owned are needed to monitor asset quality trends at individual institutions and industry-wide, including when coupled with the past due and nonaccrual data for loans secured by the same type of property from Schedule RC-N. The component information may provide insight into the market conditions affecting the segments of the real estate market in the institution's trade area, including possible deteriorating conditions.
Maturity and repricing information on other borrowed money, together with the maturity and repricing information collected in other schedules for other types of assets and liabilities, is needed to evaluate liquidity and interest rate risk to the institution, and to aid in evaluating the strategies institutions take to mitigate these risks. Liquidity and interest rate risk indicators that are calculated by agency models from an institution's Call Report data and exceed specified parameters or change significantly between examinations are red flags that call for timely examiner attention. Data on certain secured liabilities also is used in the assessment of institutions' liquidity positions because increases in the relative volume of secured versus unsecured liabilities may signal that an institution is encountering difficulties in rolling over unsecured borrowings due to deterioration in its condition, which would call for supervisory follow-up when identified between examinations.
Information on mutual funds and annuities, bank Web sites with transactional capability, certain trustee and custodial activities, and captive insurance subsidiaries, is used to identify institutions engaged in these activities, some of which are not typical activities for community banks. If an institution begins to report that it engages in one or more of these activities or reports a significant increase in assets tied to an activity between examinations, this may indicate the need for examiner follow-up to assess the institution's expertise and management of these activities. An institution's involvement in these activities
For Qualified Thrift Lenders (QTL) subject to 12 U.S.C. 1467a(c), reporting of QTL test information assists the agencies in timely identifying thrift institutions that need to take action to remain in compliance, or that fail to comply and become subject to certain restrictions. International remittance transfers data by type is needed annually to monitor compliance with regulatory requirements (12 CFR 1005.30, et seq). Different types of transfers pose different consumer protection concerns and information of transfer activity aids in the monitoring of the evolution of this market, and how institutions diversify remittance offerings beyond wire transfers.
Schedule RC-R collects information about an institution's capital. Part I (Regulatory Capital Components and Ratios) collects information about the types and amounts of capital instruments and the leverage and risk-based capital ratios. Part II (Risk-Weighted Assets) collects additional information about types of assets on an institution's balance sheet and certain off-balance sheet items to use in computing the risk-based capital ratios.
The Federal banking agencies are required to establish a leverage limit and risk-based capital requirement for insured depository institutions under 12 U.S.C. 1831o and to monitor compliance with those requirements. The agencies implemented the capital requirements in their regulatory capital rules (12 CFR part 3 for OCC; 12 CFR part 217 for the Board; 12 CFR part 324 for the FDIC) and the compliance requirements in their prompt corrective action rules (12 CFR part 6 for OCC; 12 CFR part 208, subpart D for the Board; 12 CFR 324, subpart H for the FDIC). The capital rules recognize three types of capital instruments: Common Equity Tier 1, Additional Tier 1, and Tier 2 capital. The total of each type on Schedule RC-R, Part I, includes all potential adjustments to each component as allowed under the capital rules. The capital rules also provide for a calculation of risk-weighted assets, which consists of assigning a risk weight to every asset on an institution's balance sheet that is not deducted from capital, as well as to certain off-balance sheet items. Schedule RC-R, Part II, includes all of the fields necessary to properly calculate an institution's risk-weighted asset amount. Finally, the results of the calculation of capital instrument amounts and risk-weighted assets are used to calculate risk-based and leverage capital ratios on Schedule RC-R, Part I. The agencies need to be able to monitor compliance with the capital rules and prompt corrective action provisions no less frequently than quarterly.
In addition to using the resulting capital ratios to determine an institution's status under 12 U.S.C. 1831o and the banking agencies' prompt corrective action regulations, the FFIEC member entities use the regulatory capital information for other purposes. The calculation of Tier 1 capital at quarter-end flows into the amount of average tangible equity for the calendar quarter that institutions report in Schedule RC-O, which is used in the measurement of institutions' assessment bases for deposit insurance purposes. The Tier 1 leverage ratio is one of the inputs into the calculation of deposit insurance assessment rates for small institutions and Tier 1 capital is a commonly used input when calculating these rates for large and highly complex institutions. Capital adequacy is rated in an institution's on-site examination as the C of the CAMELS component ratings, and the information provided on Schedule RC-R helps examiners evaluate and rate that component. It is also used in the off-site monitoring process, and is important in reviewing the risk profile and viability of a financial institution. For example, the ratio of risk-weighted assets to unweighted assets has been found to provide an informative forward-looking signal regarding an institution's risk posture. The information provided on Schedule RC-R also is used in deciding whether to approve an 18-month examination cycle for a specific institution and in reviewing merger applications.
Information on specific sub-components of regulatory capital is useful as well. For example, the amounts of unrealized gains and losses on securities that flow into regulatory capital provide an indication of an institution's interest rate and market risk. Information on the risk weighting of assets and off-balance sheet items provides insight into management's risk tolerance and the institution's risk to the deposit insurance fund. The risk-weighted asset composition information and risk-based capital ratios that flow into the UBPR are helpful to examiners when reviewing Reports of Examination and to establish a peer group average for comparison when evaluating changes in these items. The risk-weighted asset composition information also assists examiners in evaluating the reasons for changes in total risk-weighted assets over time at individual institutions. The derivatives exposure items reported in the Memoranda section of Schedule RC-R, Part II, provide a key insight into the notional principal amounts of both cleared and over-the-counter derivatives in the banking system, in addition to being inputs into the calculation for risk-weighted assets.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on continuing collections of information. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning regulations relating to the time and manner of Making Certain Elections Under the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, and the Redesignation of Certain Other Temporary Elections Regulations. These regulations provide guidance to persons making these elections.
Written comments should be received on or before August 28, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Taquesha Cain, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, 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 information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning exclusions from gross income of foreign corporations.
Written comments should be received on or before August 28, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the subcommittees of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the dates indicated below:
The addresses of the meeting sites are:
(*Teleconference). VA Central Office, 1100 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
VHA National Conference Center, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
The purpose of the Board is to review rehabilitation research and development applications and advise the Director, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, and the Chief Research and Development Officer on the scientific and technical merit, the mission relevance, and the protection of human and animal subjects.
The subcommittee meetings will be open to the public for approximately one-half hour at the start of each meeting to cover administrative matters and to discuss the general status of the program. Members of the public who wish to attend the open portion of the teleconference sessions may dial 1 (800) 767-1750, participant code 35847. The remaining portion of each subcommittee meeting will be closed to the public for the discussion, examination, reference to, and oral review of the research applications and critiques. During the closed portion of each subcommittee meeting, discussion and recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research information (the premature disclosure of which would likely compromise significantly the implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects). As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
No oral or written comments will be accepted from the public for either portion of the meetings. Those who plan to attend (by phone or in person) the open portion of a subcommittee meeting must contact Tiffany Asqueri, Designated Federal Officer, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, at Department of Veterans Affairs (10P9R), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or email
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to revoke the ancillary provisions for the construction and the shipyard sectors that OSHA adopted on January 9, 2017 but retain the new lower permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 μg/m
Electronic copies of this
The preamble to this proposed rule on occupational exposure to beryllium and beryllium compounds follows this outline:
On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule
Based on information submitted to the record, in the final rule OSHA issued three separate standards—for general industry, for shipyards, and for construction. In addition to the revised PEL, the final rule established a new short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 μg/m
On March 21, 2017 OSHA published a delay of the effective date for the final beryllium rule to May 20, 2017 in the
After a further review of the comments received on the proposed extension, as well as a review of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, OSHA is proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions applicable to the construction and shipyard sectors, but to retain the new lower PEL of 0.2 μg/m
While the new beryllium rule went into effect on May 20, 2017, compliance obligations do not begin until March 12, 2018. Moreover, OSHA will not enforce the January 9, 2017 shipyard and construction standards without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway.
OSHA requests feedback on issues associated with the proposed regulatory action and requests information that would help the Agency craft the final rule. The Agency welcomes comments concerning all aspects of this proposal. However, OSHA is especially interested in responses, supported by evidence and reasons, to the following questions:
1. OSHA has proposed revoking the ancillary provisions for the construction and shipyard sectors while retaining the new (lower) PEL of 0.2 μg/m
2. In particular, what is the incremental benefit if OSHA keeps the medical surveillance requirements for construction and shipyards described in the January 9, 2017 final rule, but revokes the other ancillary provisions? Alternatively, should OSHA keep some of the medical surveillance requirements for construction and shipyards but not others? Which medical surveillance requirements are most appropriate for beryllium-exposed workers in these sectors, if any? For more information, see Regulatory Alternative #21a, PELs plus medical surveillance (lowering the PEL and requiring medical surveillance when exposed above the PEL for operations outside the scope of the proposed rule), in the 2015 NPRM (80 FR 47565 (8/7/15)). OSHA's estimates of the medical surveillance costs changed between the NPRM and final rule because of a change of the medical surveillance trigger from the action level to the PEL; updated exposure data and hire rates; and revised unit costs in response to comments and conversion from 2010 to 2015 dollars.
3. In addition to the proposal in this notice, OSHA is considering extending the compliance dates in the January 9, 2017 final rule by a year for the construction and shipyard standards. This would give affected employers additional time to come into compliance with its requirements, which could be warranted by the uncertainty created by this proposal.
In the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA analyzed the technological and economic feasibility of complying with the rule for the construction and shipyard sectors and found that the rule was technologically and economically feasible for these sectors. Since the changes we propose today will retain the new PELs and eliminate the ancillary provisions, these changes will not affect the feasibility findings. The technological and economic feasibility of the January 9, 2017 final rule is established in the FEA, which is summarized in Sections IV and VI of this preamble.
Table I-1, which is based on the material presented in the 2016 FEA with updated assumptions, provides OSHA's best estimate of the cost savings to shipyard and construction establishments in all affected application groups as a result of this proposal to remove all of the ancillary provision requirements in those sectors. OSHA is proposing to remove the following ancillary provisions: Exposure monitoring, regulated areas (and competent person in construction), a written exposure control plan, protective equipment and work clothing, hygiene areas and practices, housekeeping, medical surveillance, medical removal, and worker training. Note that, because OSHA is not proposing to change the January 9, 2017 PELs and STELs in this proposal, OSHA has not estimated any cost savings related to engineering controls or respirators. Note also that, although not a requirement in the January 9, 2017 beryllium standards, OSHA estimated costs there for rule familiarization. Since some employers may have already incurred familiarization costs in reviewing those published standards, OSHA views them as sunk costs and has not included them in the estimated cost savings. Furthermore, OSHA has added some modest costs in this proposal to reflect the fact that construction and shipyard employers would be expected to devote some time becoming familiar with the revocation of the January 9, 2017 ancillary provisions.
The remainder of this preamble presents the legal requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) (Section II, Pertinent Legal Authority); a summary of the events leading to the proposal (Section III); the technological feasibility summary (Section IV); the preliminary economic analysis for the proposal (Section V); the preliminary economic feasibility findings and the regulatory flexibility certification for the proposal (Section VI); a summary of the analysis of this proposal under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Section VII); analyses under various executive orders and a description of the implications for State-Plan States (Sections VIII-XIII); instructions for public participation (Section XIV); and the summary and explanation of OSHA's proposal to maintain the TWA PEL of 0.2 μg/m
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“the OSH Act” or “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. 651
An occupational safety or health standard is a standard “which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.” 29 U.S.C. 652(8).
The Act provides that in promulgating health standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents, such as the January 9, 2017 final rule regulating occupational exposure to beryllium,
The Court further observed that what constitutes “significant risk” is “not a mathematical straitjacket” and must be “based largely on policy considerations.”
The Act also authorizes the Secretary to “modify” or “revoke” any occupational safety or health standard. 29 U.S.C. 655(b). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last forever, and agencies may revise their rules if supported by a reasoned analysis for the change.
OSHA is required to set standards “on the basis of the best available evidence,” 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5), and its determinations are “conclusive” if supported by “substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole,” 29 U.S.C. 655(f). As noted above, the Supreme Court, in
OSHA standards must be both technologically and economically feasible.
With respect to economic feasibility, the courts have held that “a standard is feasible if it does not threaten massive dislocation to or imperil the existence of the industry.”
Because section 6(b)(5) of the Act explicitly imposes the “to the extent feasible” limitation on the setting of health standards, OSHA is not permitted to use cost-benefit analysis to make its standards-setting decisions. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). An OSHA standard must be cost effective, which means that the protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available alternatives that achieve the same level of protection, but OSHA cannot choose an alternative that provides a lower level of protection because it is less costly.
The first occupational exposure limit for beryllium was set in 1949 by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which required that beryllium exposure in the workplaces under its jurisdiction be limited to 2 μg/m
In 1956, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) published a Hygienic Guide which supported the AEC exposure limits. In 1959, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH®) also adopted a Threshold Limit Value (TLV®) of 2 μg/m
In 1971, OSHA adopted, under Section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and made applicable to general industry, the ANSI standard (Document ID 1303). Section 6(a) provided that in the first two years after the effective date of the Act, OSHA was to promulgate “start-up” standards, on an expedited basis and without public hearing or comment, based on national consensus or established Federal standards that improved employee safety or health. Pursuant to that authority, in 1971, OSHA promulgated approximately 425 PELs for air contaminants, including beryllium, derived principally from Federal standards applicable to government contractors under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C. 35, and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (commonly
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a document entitled Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Beryllium (Criteria Document) in June 1972 with Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) of 2 μg/m
In October 1975, OSHA proposed a new beryllium standard for all industries based on information from studies finding that beryllium caused cancer in animals (40 FR 48814 (10/17/75)). Adoption of this proposal would have lowered the 8-hour TWA exposure limit from 2 μg/m
In 1977, NIOSH recommended an exposure limit of 0.5 μg/m
In 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (CBDPP) Final Rule for employees exposed to beryllium in its facilities (Document ID 1323). The DOE rule set an action level of 0.2 μg/m
Also in 1999, OSHA was petitioned by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) (Document ID 0069) and by Dr. Lee Newman and Ms. Margaret Mroz, from the National Jewish Health (NJH) (Document ID 0069), to promulgate an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for beryllium in the workplace. In 2001, OSHA was petitioned for an ETS by Public Citizen Health Research Group and again by PACE (Document ID 0069). In order to promulgate an ETS, the Secretary of Labor must prove (1) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to a hazard, and (2) that such an emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger (29 U.S.C. 655(c) [section 6(c)]). The burden of proof is on the Department and because of the difficulty of meeting this burden, the Department usually proceeds when appropriate with ordinary notice and comment [section 6(b)] rulemaking rather than a section 6(c) ETS. Thus, instead of granting the ETS requests, OSHA instructed staff to further collect and analyze research regarding the harmful effects of beryllium in preparation for possible section 6(b) rulemaking.
On November 26, 2002, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) for “Occupational Exposure to Beryllium” (Document ID 1242). The RFI contained questions on employee exposure, health effects, risk assessment, exposure assessment and monitoring methods, control measures and technological feasibility, training, medical surveillance, and impact on small business entities. In the RFI, OSHA expressed concerns about health effects such as chronic beryllium disease (CBD), lung cancer, and beryllium sensitization. OSHA pointed to studies indicating that even short-term exposures below OSHA's PEL of 2 μg/m
On November 15, 2007, OSHA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to review a draft proposed standard for occupational exposure to beryllium. OSHA convened this panel under Section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The SBREFA Panel issued a report on January 15, 2008 which included the SERs' comments. SERs expressed concerns about the impact of the ancillary requirements such as exposure monitoring and medical surveillance. Their comments addressed potential costs associated with compliance with the draft standard, and possible impacts of the standard on market conditions, among other issues. In addition, many SERs sought clarification of some of the ancillary requirements such as the meaning of “routine” contact or “contaminated surfaces.”
OSHA then developed a draft preliminary beryllium health effects evaluation (Document ID 1271) and a draft preliminary beryllium risk assessment (Document ID 1272), and in 2010, OSHA hired a contractor to oversee an independent scientific peer review of these documents. The contractor identified experts familiar with beryllium health effects research and ensured that these experts had no conflict of interest or apparent bias in performing the review. The contractor selected five experts with expertise in such areas as pulmonary and occupational medicine, CBD, beryllium sensitization, the Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test (BeLPT), beryllium toxicity and carcinogenicity, and medical surveillance. Other areas of expertise included animal modeling, occupational epidemiology, biostatistics, risk and exposure assessment, exposure-response modeling, beryllium exposure assessment, industrial hygiene, and occupational/environmental health engineering.
Regarding the preliminary health effects evaluation, the peer reviewers
Regarding the preliminary risk assessment, the peer reviewers were highly supportive of OSHA's approach and major conclusions (Document ID 1210). The peer reviewers stated that the key studies were appropriate and their selection clearly explained in the document. They regarded the preliminary analysis of these studies to be reasonable and scientifically sound. The reviewers supported OSHA's conclusion that substantial risk of sensitization and CBD were observed in facilities where the highest exposure-generating processes had median full-shift exposures around 0.2 μg/m
In February 2012, OSHA received for consideration a draft recommended standard for beryllium (Materion and USW, 2012, Document ID 0754). This draft standard was the product of a joint effort between two stakeholders: Materion Corporation, a leading producer of beryllium and beryllium products in the United States, and the United Steelworkers, an international labor union representing workers who manufacture beryllium alloys and beryllium-containing products in a number of industries. They sought to craft an OSHA-like model beryllium standard that would have support from both labor and industry. OSHA considered this draft standard along with other information submitted during the development of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for beryllium published in 2015. As described in greater detail in the Introduction to the Summary and Explanation of the final rule, there was substantial agreement between the submitted joint draft standard and the OSHA proposed standard.
On August 7, 2015, OSHA published its NPRM in the
The NPRM invited interested stakeholders to submit comments on a variety of issues and indicated that OSHA would schedule a public hearing upon request. Commenters submitted information and suggestions on a variety of topics. In addition, in response to a request from the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, OSHA scheduled an informal public hearing on the proposed rule. OSHA invited interested persons to participate by providing oral testimony and documentary evidence at the hearing. OSHA also welcomed presentation of data and documentary evidence that would provide the Agency with evidence to use in determining whether to develop a final rule.
The public hearing was held in Washington, DC on March 21 and 22, 2016. Administrative Law Judge William Colwell presided over the hearing. OSHA heard testimony from several organizations, such as public health groups, the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society, other industry representatives, and labor unions. Following the hearing, participants who had filed notices of intent to appear were allowed 30 days—until April 21, 2016—to submit additional evidence and data, and an additional 15 days—until May 6, 2016—to submit final briefs, arguments, and summations (Document ID 1756, Tr. 326). In all, the OSHA rulemaking record contained over 1,900 documents, including all the studies OSHA relied on in its preliminary health effects and risk assessment analyses, the hearing transcript and submitted testimonies, the joint Materion-USW draft proposed standard, and the pre- and post-hearing comments and briefs.
In 2016, in an action parallel to OSHA's rulemaking, DOE proposed to update its action level to 0.05 μg/m
On January 9, 2017, OSHA published its final rule
In a change from the NPRM, OSHA included the construction and shipyard industries in the beryllium final rule. OSHA's decision was based on supportive testimony and comments from stakeholders along with exposure data in the record indicating the potential for exposures above the action level for abrasive blasting using coal and copper slags (Document ID 1756; 1782; 1790). OSHA issued three separate standards for general industry, construction, and shipyards in an attempt to tailor requirements to each sector. The final rule also included other changes from the NPRM that were based on OSHA's analysis of the record. These included changes in the scope of the standards, exposure assessment requirements, beryllium work areas, personal protective clothing and equipment, medical surveillance requirements, and compliance dates.
On February 1, 2017, OSHA published a delay of the effective date for the final rule in the
On March 2, 2017, OSHA published a proposed delay of effective date for the final rule in the
On March 21, 2017, after considering all the comments received, OSHA finalized the delay of the effective date for the final beryllium rule in the
This section summarizes the basis for OSHA's technological feasibility findings made in the 2016 Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for the January 9, 2017 beryllium final rule (
The primary abrasive blasting job categories include the abrasive blasting operator (blaster) and pot tender (blaster's helper or assistant) during open blasting projects. Support personnel such as pot tenders or abrasive media cleanup workers might also be employed to clean up (
Section 15 of Chapter IV of the 2016 Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for the January 9, 2017 final beryllium rule included a detailed discussion of exposure data and analysis for the development of the exposure profile for workers in abrasive blasting operations. Because OSHA addressed general industry abrasive blasting operations in other general industry sections where appropriate, such as in the nonferrous foundries industry, the exposure profile in Section 15 addressed only exposure data from construction and shipyard tasks. The exposure profile for abrasive blasters, pot tenders/helpers, and abrasive media cleanup workers was based on two National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluations of beryllium exposure from abrasive blasting with coal slag, unpublished sampling results for abrasive blasting operations from four U.S. shipyards, and data submitted by the U.S. Navy (NIOSH, 1983, Document ID 0696; NIOSH, 2007, 0770; OSHA, 2005, 1166; U.S. Navy, 2003, 0145).
Similar to the profile for abrasive blasting activities, OSHA used exposure data from the 2016 FEA to develop the exposure profile for welding in shipyards. OSHA used the exposure data from Chapter IV-10 Appendices 2 and 3 and combined the aluminum base metal and non-aluminum or unknown base material data. OSHA removed shorter duration samples that appeared in Appendix 3 of FEA Chapter IV-10. Seven maritime welding samples from Appendix 3, Table IV-10.6 with sampling durations of 240 minutes or greater were used in this profile to represent the 8-hour TWA samples.
Overall, based on the information discussed in Chapter IV of Final Economic Analysis of the January 9, 2017 final beryllium rule, OSHA determined that the majority of the exposures in construction and shipyards are either already at or below the new final PEL, or can be adequately controlled to levels below the final PEL through the implementation of additional engineering and work practice controls for most operations most of the time. The one exception is that OSHA determined that workers who perform open-air abrasive blasting using mineral grit (
This Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related to the profile of affected application groups, establishments, and employees, the cost savings, and the health effects of OSHA's proposal to revoke both the construction and shipyard ancillary provisions and make no changes to the January 9, 2017 final rule's PEL and STEL for the shipyard and construction industries.
The proposed actions are not “economically significant regulatory actions” under Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, nor are they “major rules” under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Under this proposal, employers in shipyards and construction would no longer be required to implement the ancillary provisions adopted by the January 9, 2017 final rule. The nine ancillary provisions being removed by this proposal are: (1) Assess employees' exposure to airborne beryllium, (2) establish regulated areas or a competent person, (3) develop a written exposure control plan, (4) provide personal protective work clothing and equipment, (5) establish hygiene areas and practices, (6) implement housekeeping measures, (7) provide medical surveillance, (8) provide medical removal for employees who have developed CBD or been confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization, and (9) provide appropriate training. OSHA assumes that these employers have already incurred the costs of familiarizing themselves with the ancillary provisions in the final rule. In addition, the proposal would retain the new PEL and STEL through revisions of the Z Table in 29 CFR 1915.1000 in shipyards and Appendix A to 29 CFR 1926.55 in construction. The changes to these tables are a technical correction, given the proposed changes, and will not affect the PEL and STEL requirements of the final rule. While OSHA still welcomes comment on the applicability of existing standards to the operations covered by this proposal, this PEA provides OSHA's preliminary assessment of how those standards impact the costs, benefits, and baseline compliance associated with the beryllium rule.
This Introduction to the PEA is followed by:
In this section, OSHA presents the preliminary profile of industries affected by this proposal to revoke the ancillary provisions for the shipyard and construction sectors (82 FR 2470-2757, 1/9/2017) while retaining the revised PEL and STEL for those sectors. The profile data in this section are drawn from the industry profiles in Chapter III and exposure profiles and data in Chapter IV of the Final Economic Analysis supporting the new beryllium standards (“2016 FEA”; Document ID 2042).
As a first step, OSHA identifies the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industries, both in the shipyard and construction sectors, with potential
For each industry sector identified, the Agency describes the uses of beryllium and estimates the number of establishments and employees that may be affected by this rulemaking. Employee exposure to beryllium can also occur as a result of certain processes (such as welding) that are found in many industries. This analysis will use the term “application group” to refer to a cross-industry group with a common process.
Beryllium is rarely used by all establishments in any particular industry because of its unique properties and relatively high cost. In Chapter III of the 2016 FEA, OSHA described each application group; identified the processes and occupations with beryllium exposure, including available sampling exposure measurements; and explained how OSHA estimated the number of establishments working with beryllium and the number of employees exposed to beryllium. Those estimates and the new exposure profile for abrasive blasting in construction and shipyards and welding in shipyards are presented in this preamble, along with a brief description of the application groups and an explanation of the derivation of the new exposure profiles. For additional information about these data and the application groups, please see Chapter III of the 2016 FEA.
All costs are estimated in 2016 dollars. Costs reported in 2016 dollars were applied directly in this PEA; wage data were updated to 2016 dollars using BLS data; all other costs reported for years earlier than 2016 were updated to 2016 dollars using the GDP implicit price deflator (OSHA, 2017).
OSHA's 2016 FEA identified one affected application group in the construction sector and two application groups in the shipyard sector. Both the shipyard and construction sectors have employees in the abrasive blasting application group, and the shipyard sector has employees in the welding application group.
In the following sections, OSHA describes the application groups in construction and shipyards that will be affected by this proposal.
Abrasive blasting involves the use of hand-held or automatic equipment to direct a stream of abrasive material at high speed against a surface to clean, abrade, etch, or otherwise change the original appearance or condition of the surface (WorkSafe, 2000, Document ID 0692). Surfaces commonly treated by abrasive blasting techniques include iron, steel, aluminum, brass, copper, glass, masonry (brick, concrete, stone, etc.), sand castings, plastic, and wood (NIOSH, 1976, Document ID 0779). In construction and shipyards, abrasive blasting is primarily used for two purposes:
• Cleaning surfaces by removing unwanted paint, rust, scale, dirt, salts, grease, and flux in preparation for painting, anodizing, welding, or other processes requiring a clean surface.
• Producing a desired matte or decorative finish.
Abrasive blasting systems generally include an abrasive container or blasting pot, a propelling device, and an abrasive blasting nozzle. The three main propelling methods are air pressure, water pressure, and centrifugal force provided by the use of wheels. Air blasting systems use compressed air to propel the abrasive (dry blasting), water blasting systems use either compressed air (wet blasting) or high pressure water (hydroblasting), and centrifugal wheel systems use centrifugal and inertial forces (EPA, 1997, Document ID 0784).
Abrasive blasting can generate large quantities of dust that contains a variety of metals and toxic air contaminants. Workers can have exposures to multiple air contaminants from both the abrasive and the surface being blasted. The source of the air contaminants includes the base material being blasted, the surface coating(s) being removed, the abrasive being used, and any abrasive contamination from previous blasting operations (Burgess 1991, Document ID 0907). Potential air contaminants that might be associated with abrasive blasting and their sources are listed in Table IV.65 in Chapter IV of the FEA in support of the new beryllium standards.
A number of different types of abrasives containing beryllium in trace amounts can be used for blasting media depending on the application. The most commonly used abrasives in the construction industry (
Abrasive blasting is mainly used in construction and shipyard operations by painting contractors and welders. (NIOSH, 1976, Document ID 0779).
The primary abrasive blasting job categories in construction and shipyards include the abrasive blasting operator (blaster) and the pot tender. Support personnel (cleanup helper) might also be employed to clean up (
As explained in its 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that 80 percent of all shipyard blasting operations and 75 percent of construction blasting operations generate potential beryllium exposures.
As was estimated in OSHA's industry profile for the 2016 FEA, for this PEA OSHA estimated there was one pot tender for each at-risk abrasive blaster and one abrasive media cleanup worker for every two abrasive blasters. The Agency invites comment on these estimates.
In the 2016 FEA, OSHA developed final estimates of the numbers of workers who perform abrasive blasting. These at-risk populations include workers in the construction sector engaged in blasting building exteriors or blasting ancillary to painting of bridges, tunnels, and related highways; ships; and other non-building construction. Shipyard workers might perform blasting as part of ship surface cleaning and preparation prior to painting or other surface coating. In the 2016 FEA, based on the BLS description of broad occupational classifications, OSHA's estimates grouped these workers in the categories “painters, construction, and maintenance” or “painters, transportation equipment.”
Below in Tables V-1 and V-2, OSHA presents its estimate of affected blasters and blasting support personnel in construction and shipyards; this estimate, reported in the 2016 FEA, is now the Agency's preliminary estimate for this NPRM. OSHA requests public comment on the estimate as well as the methodology, described in Chapter III of the 2016 FEA, for estimating affected abrasive blasters and abrasive blasting support personnel in construction and shipyards.
Beryllium exposures can occur in arc and gas welding operations when welding on base materials containing beryllium and when using equipment with electrodes that include beryllium (hereafter generally referred to simply as “welding”). Note that “gas welding” in this context also involves use of electrodes; the gas used is to protect the weld from the atmosphere.
Beryllium exposures during welding are not common and, when observed, are low (see Chapter IV: Section 10 of the 2016 FEA in support of the new beryllium standards for an extended discussion of welding). For this preliminary profile, only arc and gas welding would be affected by the proposed deregulatory action.
The principal area of welding exposures is among workers welding beryllium or beryllium-alloy products (
In its 2016 FEA, OSHA included NAICS 336611: Ship Building and Repairing, in the set of industries in the Welding application group affected by the final rule. The number of establishments and employees in this shipyard industry affected by the final
OSHA requests public comment on the estimates shown in Table V-3.
As shown in Table V-4, OSHA estimates that a total of 11,486 workers in 2,796 establishments will be affected by this proposal. Also shown are the estimated annual revenues for these entities. Table V-5 presents the Agency's preliminary estimate of affected entities defined as small by the Small Business Administration (SBA); Table V-6 presents OSHA's preliminary estimate of affected establishments and employees by NAICS industries for the subset of small entities with fewer than 20 employees.
However, the small and very small entity figures in Tables V-5 and V-6 were not used to prepare the cost savings estimates in Section D of this PEA. For costing purposes in Section D, OSHA included small establishments owned by larger entities in the figures in Tables V-5 and V-6 because such establishments do not qualify as “small entities” for the purposes of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. To see the difference in the number of affected establishments by size for costing purpose, consider the example of a “large entity” with 500 employees, consisting of 50 ten-employee establishments. In Section B., each of these 50 establishments would be excluded from Tables V-5 and V-6 because they are part of a “large entity”; in Section D., where all establishments are included because there is no filter for entity size, each would be considered a small establishment.
Thus, for purposes of Section D., there are 2,399 affected establishments with fewer than 20 employees, 369 affected establishments with between 20 and 499 employees, and 28 establishments with more than 500 employees; these estimates were derived in the cost spreadsheet by NAICS industry and in total (see, for example, Columns TK through TM in the “Rule” tab as developed for familiarization cost savings; the totals are in cells TK5 through TM5) (OSHA, 2017). While not shown in the tables or used in the analysis, Census (2015) Statistics of US Businesses data suggest there are also a total of 3,464 establishments affiliated with entities in construction and shipyards employing between 20 and 499 employees, of which approximately 157 would be affected by the rule.
OSHA requests public comment on the profile data presented in Tables V-4, V-5, and V-6.
The exposure profiles for abrasive blasting presented here were taken directly from Chapter IV of the 2016 FEA, and are more fully summarized in Section IV of this preamble. The exposure profile for welding in shipyards, however, is based on data presented in appendices 2 and 3 of Section 10.6 of Chapter IV, and again is more fully summarized in Section IV. Those data measure exposures of shipyard based welders, and OSHA has preliminarily determined that it is a more suitable data set on which to base the exposure profile of welders in shipyards than the data used in the 2016 FEA, which were based on general industry welding exposures.
Tables V-7 and V-8 summarize, from the exposure profiles, the number of workers at risk of beryllium exposure and the distribution of 8-hour TWA beryllium exposures by affected application group and job category. Exposures are grouped into ranges (
Table V-9 presents data by NAICS code on the estimated number of workers currently at risk of beryllium exposure for each of the same exposure ranges. As shown, an estimated 2,167 (after rounding) workers currently have beryllium exposures above the final PEL of 0.2 μg/m
For this PEA, OSHA updated the 2016 FEA wage estimates from 2015 to 2016 levels using data for base wages by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) from the March 2017 Occupational Employment Statistics survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. OSHA applied a fringe markup (loading factor) of 46.0 percent of base wages (BLS, 2016c, Document ID 1980);
OSHA also updated the new hire rate for manufacturing from its 2016 FEA
Table V-11 reflects OSHA's estimate of current industry compliance rates, by application group and job category, for each of the ancillary provisions that, under the January 9, 2017 final rule, would affect the establishments that are subject to this preliminary deregulatory action. See Chapter III of the 2016 FEA for additional discussion of the current baseline compliance rates for each provision, which were estimated based on site visits, industry contacts, published literature, and the Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel (SBAR, 2008, Document ID 0345). Note that the compliance rate is typically the same for all jobs in a given sector, except for administrative workers, who generally have zero percent compliance with hygiene requirements and 100 percent compliance with PPE (because they are not expected to need PPE during work assignments).
In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive blasters in construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate with the PPE requirements in the beryllium standards. However, upon further review of existing OSHA standards, OSHA is revising that estimate to 100 percent compliance for the purpose of this preliminary economic analysis. In construction, OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(5)(v) requires abrasive blasting operators to wear full PPE, including respirators, gloves, safety shoes, and eye protection. Similarly, 29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3) requires full PPE for abrasive blaster operators performing mechanical paint removal in shipyards. Because it would not be appropriate to claim cost savings for withdrawing a rule when existing rules already have the same requirements, for the purpose of calculating cost savings and foregone benefits in this proposal, OSHA preliminarily estimates that withdrawing the beryllium rule's PPE requirements for abrasive blaster operators in construction and shipyards would have no effect on PPE compliance because those workers are already required to wear full PPE. In addition, OSHA also found, after a review of shipyard personal protective equipment requirements, that gloves are required under 1915.157(a) to protect workers from hazards faced by welders, such as thermal burns.
Additionally, upon review, OSHA has preliminarily determined that relevant PPE is required by the existing Personal Protective Equipment standard (1926.95) and the existing Hand and Body Protection standard (1915.157) to protect blasting helpers in construction and shipyards, respectively, from dermal exposure to beryllium dust. Therefore, the Agency now preliminarily estimates that all affected employees are already required to be equipped with PPE 100 percent of the time when exposed to beryllium, and uses this preliminary determination in calculating proposed cost savings and foregone benefits.
OSHA requests public comment on this revised approach and on the other preliminary baseline compliance estimates shown in Table V-11, as well as the methodology behind them as set forth in Chapter III of the 2016 FEA.
OSHA also reviewed existing housekeeping requirements and found that some housekeeping is also already required for abrasive blasting operations in construction and shipyards. CFR 1926.57(f)(7) requires that dust not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be cleaned up promptly. The general industry Ventilation standard requires the same in abrasive blasting in shipyards (
In Table V-11, where current labor compliance rates are 100 percent, OSHA indicates that removal of the ancillary provision in question would have no effect on labor compliance rates.
OSHA welcomes comments on the baseline compliance estimates shown in Table V-11, particularly with respect to PPE and housekeeping.
As a final point on baseline industry practices, OSHA acknowledges the possibility of a future decline in the use of coal slag abrasive materials and welcomes comment and information on this issue. To the extent that coal slag abrasives are replaced by other blasting materials which do not have the potential for beryllium exposures of concern, the costs and benefits of the PELs for abrasive blasting operations would also decrease.
In this section, OSHA estimates the cost savings to shipyard and construction establishments in all affected application groups as a result of this proposal to revoke the ancillary
These estimates of cost savings are largely based on the cost estimates presented for Regulatory Alternative 2a in the preamble for the new beryllium standards (82 FR 2470, 2612-2615 (January 9, 2017)), which were in turn derived from the Costs of Compliance chapter (Chapter V) of the supporting Final Economic Analysis (“2016 FEA”; Document ID 2042). Note that, as OSHA has not proposed changing the permissible exposure limit (PEL) or short-term exposure limit (STEL) set forth in the new beryllium standards, OSHA has not estimated any cost savings related to engineering controls or respirators. OSHA retained the same calculation methodology from the 2016 FEA and has updated the wages and unit costs from 2015 to 2016 dollars.
OSHA estimates that this proposal would yield a total annualized cost savings of $11.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate across the shipyard and construction sectors. All cost savings in this section are expressed in 2016 dollars and were annualized using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, as required by OMB.
The cost methodology is detailed in Chapter V of the 2016 FEA. A discussion of affected workers is presented in Section B of this PEA. Complete calculations are available in the OSHA spreadsheet in support of this PEA (OSHA, 2017). Annualization periods for expenditures on equipment are based on equipment life, and one-time costs are annualized over a 10-year period.
Table V-12 shows, by affected application group and six-digit NAICS code, annualized compliance cost savings for all establishments, for all small entities (as defined by the Small Business Act and the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) implementing regulations; see 15 U.S.C. 632 and 13 CFR 121.201), and for all very small entities (defined by OSHA as those with fewer than 20 employees).
The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost either in the FEA in support of the January 9, 2017 final standards or in the primary analysis of this PEA. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of
If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, the base wages would increase cost savings by approximately $238,000 per year, or approximately 2.2 percent above the primary estimate of cost savings.
Estimated baseline compliance rates were presented in Table V-11 in Section B of this preamble. The estimated costs for the new beryllium standards represented the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full compliance. The cost of complying with the new beryllium standards' program requirements therefore depended on the extent to which OSHA believed employers in affected application groups had already undertaken some of the required actions. For example, paragraph (e)(1) of the new beryllium standard for shipyards required employers to provide regulated areas if employee exposures cannot be reduced below the final PEL by using engineering and work practice controls. If all employers in an industry have already provided regulated areas, perhaps by physically isolating high exposure processes and restricting access, then the industry's compliance rate for that requirement would be 100 percent, and that industry would incur no new costs for this provision under the new beryllium standard for shipyards. Similarly, if all employers in shipyards have already provided regulated areas, cost savings from removing this requirement would not include the avoidance of costs already incurred by employers in shipyards prior to enactment of the new beryllium standards.
Throughout this section, OSHA presents cost-saving formulas in the text, usually in parentheses, to help explain the derivation of cost-saving estimates for the individual provisions. Because the values used in the formulas shown in the text are shown only to the second decimal place, while the spreadsheets supporting the text are not limited to two decimal places, the calculation using the presented formula will sometimes differ slightly from the totals presented in the tables.
This subsection presents OSHA's estimated cost savings from this proposal due to revoking the ancillary provisions in the new beryllium standards for shipyards and construction. The ancillary provisions contained in the new beryllium standards encompass the following nine employer duties, whose removal would each provide potential cost savings: (1) Assess employees' exposure to airborne beryllium, (2) establish beryllium regulated areas (and competent person in construction), (3) develop a written exposure control plan, (4) provide personal protective work clothing and equipment, (5) establish hygiene areas and practices, (6) implement housekeeping measures, (7) provide medical surveillance, (8) provide medical removal for employees who have developed CBD or been confirmed positive for beryllium sensitization, and (9) provide appropriate training. In addition, OSHA has estimated that employers would incur a modest cost to familiarize themselves with the changes to the ancillary provisions in the final rule as a result of this proposal.
The affected worker population varies by each program element, as discussed in each subsection below. For example, in the 2016 FEA the regulated area program requirements triggered by the final PEL of 0.2 μg/m
Cost savings for each removed program requirement are aggregated by employment and by industry. For the most part, unit cost savings do not vary by industry, and any variations are specifically noted.
Under the new beryllium standards, the employer must assess the exposure of each employee who is, or who may reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium under either a
The employer must reassess exposures whenever a change in the production, process, control equipment, personnel, or work practices may reasonably be expected to result in new or additional exposures at or above the action level, or when the employer has any reason to believe that new or additional exposures at or above the action level have occurred.
V-13 shows the unit cost savings for avoided initial monitoring and subsequent monitoring. These savings are identical to the unit costs identified in the 2016 FEA when adjusted to 2016 dollars.
OSHA estimates that the total annualized exposure assessment cost savings would be $5,359,520 for all affected industries.
The new beryllium standard for shipyards requires the employer to establish and maintain a regulated area wherever an employee's airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, either the time-weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) or short term exposure limit (STEL). A regulated area can include temporary work areas where maintenance or non-routine tasks are performed. There is no regulated area requirement for construction.
Employers with employees in regulated areas must comply with specific provisions that both limit employee exposure within the boundaries of the regulated area and curb the migration of beryllium outside the area.
The new beryllium standard for the construction industry requires that, wherever employees are, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium at levels above the TWA PEL or STEL, the employer designate a competent person to make frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement the written exposure control plan.
OSHA assumed that, in restricting access in construction, employers would use the briefing option half of the time and direct access control the other half.
Based on OSHA's cost estimates in the 2016 FEA (adjusted to 2016 dollars), the cost savings involved in removing the requirements of setting up the regulated area in shipyards include initial set-up time by a supervisor ($329), tape to demarcate the regulated area ($29 annually), and the one-time cost of warning signs to mark the regulated area ($144). There is also the annual cost for daily use of disposable clothing and two disposable respirators by authorized persons who might need to enter the area in the course of their job duties ($6,900). The annual total regulated area cost savings in shipyards for the tape, clothing, and respirators is therefore $6,929, and annualized cost savings is $55 (including the annualized value of the one-time labor and sign costs of $329 and $144).
In the new beryllium construction standard, a competent person must implement the written exposure control plan to limit access to work areas and ensure that employees use respiratory protection and personal protective clothing and equipment. A competent person may implement the written exposure control plan either by using the briefing option or the direct access control option.
As shown in Table V-14,
As shown in Table V-14, the annualized cost savings of the direct access control option is $80.45 per at-risk crew member. This cost savings per at-risk crew member includes the avoided supervisor time to set up the area per job ($10.27) which, assuming 15 jobs per year, equals $154.05 per year. Dividing the annual cost savings ($154.05) by the average number of workers per crew (4) equals the per worker cost savings for the avoided supervisor time to set up the area ($38.51). The other unit cost savings are the annualized hazard tape cost savings per worker ($35.55 = $9.48 hazard tape cost savings per job × 15 jobs per year ÷ 4 workers per crew). The annualized warning sign cost savings per worker ($6.38 = $25.54 warning signs cost savings per year ÷ 4 workers per crew), which total an annualized materials cost savings per worker of $41.94. Adding the annualized cost savings per worker to identify and set up the controlled access area ($38.51) to the annualized materials cost savings per worker ($41.94) equals the total cost savings of the direct access control option per worker per year ($80.45). Consequently, as shown in Table V-14, the annualized cost savings of competent persons restricting access to work areas is $85.30 per at-risk crew member (average of $90.16 and $80.45).
OSHA estimates the total annualized cost savings of regulated areas and competent person requirements is $261,099 for all affected shipyard and construction industries, with competent person requirements accounting for $8,464 of the total.
Under the new beryllium standards, employers are required, for tasks generating airborne beryllium exposure above the action level, to establish and maintain a written exposure control plan.
Further, employers must update the exposure control plan when:
(A) Any change in production processes, materials, equipment, personnel, work practices, or control methods results or can reasonably be expected to result in new or additional airborne exposures to beryllium;
(B) The employer becomes aware that an employee has a beryllium-related health effect or symptom; or
(C) The employer has any reason to believe that new or additional airborne exposures are occurring or will occur.
Finally, the employer must make a copy of the written exposure control plan accessible to each employee who is, or can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium.
The estimated cost savings
In addition, because larger firms with more affected workers will need to develop more complicated written control plans, OSHA estimated that the development of a plan would require an extra thirty minutes of a manager's time per affected employee. The cost for an extra thirty minutes of a manager's time per affected employee to develop a more complicated plan is $36.21 (0.5 × $72.42) per affected employee in this PEA, for an annualized cost of $4.50 per employee.
Because of various triggers under which the employer would have to update the plan annually after the first year, the Agency further estimated that, on average, managers would need 12 minutes (0.2 hours) per affected employee per quarter—or 48 minutes (4 × 12), which equals 0.8 hours, per affected employee per year—to review and update the plan. Thus, the cost for managers to review and update the plan would be $57.94 (0.8 × $72.42 per affected employee for years 2-10.
Finally, each year, 5 minutes of clerical time for providing each employee with a copy of the written exposure control plan, at a clerical wage of $22.53 per hour (File Clerks SOC 43-4071), comes to an annual cost of $1.88 per employee.
OSHA estimates that the total annualized cost savings for removing the requirements for development, implementation, distribution, and update of a written exposure control plan is $233,032 for all affected industries in shipyards and construction.
Under the new beryllium standards, personal protective clothing and equipment are required for workers in shipyards and construction:
1. Whose airborne exposure exceeds, or can reasonably be expected to exceed, the TWA PEL or STEL; or
2. Where employees' skin can reasonably be expected to be exposed to beryllium.
For the most part, the cost savings for PPE follow the cost estimates in the 2016 FEA. However, there are two exceptions. First, the new beryllium standards require shipyard welders to wear gloves because it is reasonable to expect that their skin will be exposed to beryllium. In the 2016 FEA OSHA listed the shipyard welders' compliance rate with this PPE requirement at 0 percent, inadvertently suggesting that shipyard welders were not already wearing gloves when, in fact, all shipyard welders are already required to wear gloves. In preparing this proposal, OSHA reviewed its compliance rates and discovered the oversight.
Second, for the same reason as with welders, the beryllium standards also require abrasive blasters in shipyards and construction to wear gloves as PPE. In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that abrasive blasters in construction and shipyards had a 75 percent compliance rate with the PPE requirements in the beryllium standard. However, upon review, OSHA has preliminarily revised this estimate because the 2016 FEA inadvertantly did not take account of the fact that relevant PPE was actually already required by other OSHA standards for abrasive blasters in construction and shipyards. See 1915.34(c)(3)(iv); 1926.57(f)(5)(v). Additionally, OSHA has determined that relevant PPE is required by the existing Personal Protective Equipment standard (1926.95) and the existing Hand and Body Protection standard (1915.157) to protect blasting helpers in construction and shipyards, respectively, from dermal exposure to beryllium dust. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating cost savings, the Agency now preliminarily estimates that all affected employees are already required to be equipped with PPE 100 percent of the time when exposed to beryllium.
As discussed above, given the existing PPE requirements, OSHA estimates that there are no estimated cost savings as a result of revoking the PPE requirements for construction and shipyard employers in the beryllium final rule.
The new beryllium standards require affected shipyard and construction employers to provide readily accessible washing facilities to remove beryllium from the hands, face, and neck of each employee exposed to beryllium. The employer must also provide a designated change room in workplaces where employees would have to remove their personal clothing and don the employer-provided protective clothing. The employer must ensure that each employee exposed to beryllium uses these facilities when necessary.
The Agency included in the 2016 FEA no additional cost for readily accessible washing facilities, under the expectation that employers already have such facilities in place. OSHA notes that employers of abrasive blasters exposed to beryllium in shipyards and construction work are typically already required to provide readily accessible washing facilities to comply with other OSHA standards.
The Agency is, however, including cost savings for the removal of requirements to add a change room and segregated lockers. OSHA included these costs in the 2016 FEA for acquisition of portable structures, for employers who would need to add these. OSHA estimates that portable structures, adequate for 10 workers per establishment, could be rented annually for $3,579 (adjusted from Lerch, 2003) and that lockers could be procured for a capital cost of $448—or $53 annualized—per establishment (adjusted from Lab Safety, 2004). This results in an annualized cost of $4,027 ($3,579 + $448) per facility for a portable change room with lockers.
OSHA estimated in the 2016 FEA that 10 percent of affected establishments will be unable to meet the final TWA PEL and will, therefore, require change
The Agency estimates the total annualized cost savings of removing the provision on hygiene areas and practices to be $1,573,230 for all affected establishments.
Housekeeping includes following the written exposure control plan, promptly cleaning up all spills and emergency releases of beryllium, and, when cleaning, using methods such as HEPA-filtered vacuuming. The new beryllium standards prohibits cleaning methods that could cause dust to be airborne, such as dry sweeping or compressed air without adequate LEV, unless proper respiratory equipment is worn. All methods must be in accordance with the written exposure control plan. When a shipyard or construction employer transfers materials containing beryllium to another party for use or disposal, the employer must provide the recipient with a copy of the warning label language.
OSHA estimated the following costs in the 2016 FEA in shipyards (amounts adjusted for 2016 dollars): A one-time annualized cost per worker of a HEPA-filtered vacuum ($614); the annual cost per worker of the additional time needed to perform housekeeping ($503); and the annual cost of the warning labels per worker ($5). The total annual per-employee cost was $509, updated to 2016 dollars. Upon further review, OSHA preliminarily determined that affected employers in construction are already required to minimize dust accumulations through compliance with 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(7), which requires that dust not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be cleaned up promptly, and 29 CFR 1926.57(f)(3) and (f)(4), which require exhaust ventilation and dust collection and removal systems in abrasive blasting operations in construction. Similarly, the general industry Ventilation standard requires that dust not be allowed to accumulate and that spills be cleaned up promptly in abrasive blasting in shipyards (
The Agency estimates that there are 11,460 total affected employees in blasting in construction and shipyards, as well as 26 affected employees in shipyard welding, and that the total annualized cost savings in this proposal of removing this ancillary provision is $901,335.
The new beryllium standards require affected employers in shipyards and construction to make medical surveillance available at a reasonable time and place, and at no cost, to the following employees:
1. Employees who have been, or are reasonably expected to be, exposed at or above the action level for more than 30 days in the last 12 months;
2. Employees who show signs or symptoms of chronic beryllium disease (CBD) or signs or symptoms of other beryllium-related health effects, such as rashes;
3. Employees exposed to beryllium during an emergency; and
4. Employees whose most recent written medical opinion required by this standard recommends periodic medical surveillance.
OSHA previously identified the fees and other medical expenses that employers would incur to comply fully with the medical surveillance requirements in the new standards. Those costs would be saved under this proposal and are expressed as cost savings in the tables that follow.
Table V-15 below lists the direct unit cost savings for removing initial medical surveillance activities including: Work and medical history, physical examination, pulmonary function test, BeLPT, LDCT scan, and additional tests.
The fees, in 2016 dollars, for the total unit annual cost savings for the avoided medical examinations and tests (excluding the BeLPT test) and the time required for both the employee and the supervisor is $335.68. The total unit annual cost savings for the avoided BeLPT costs is $315.78. Because the required medical examination and the BeLPT would each typically occur only every two years, OSHA calculates the annualized cost savings of removing that examination and the BeLPT test as follows: taking the present value (PV) of the costs over 10 years and then annualizing them over 10 years at 3 percent. Using this methodology, the unit annualized biennial exam cost savings are $211.50 and the unit annualized BeLPT cost savings are $198.97.
The new beryllium standards require that a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT scan) be offered to employees eligible for medical surveillance whenever recommended by the licensed physician.
As it did with the 2016 FEA costs for LDCT scans, OSHA has based its cost saving estimates on the eligible employees receiving LDCTs every two years.
The total yearly cost savings for biennial LDCT scans consists of avoided medical costs totaling $1,122.98, comprised of an $847.74 fee for the scan (CT-scan, 2012, Document ID 0568) and the cost of a specialist to review the results, which OSHA estimates would cost $275.24. The Agency estimates an additional cost savings of $84.56 of lost work time,
In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that the number of workers that the physician recommends to receive LDCT scans would be 25 percent of workers who are exposed above 0.2 in the exposure profile. The estimate of 25 percent was based on the fact that roughly this percentage of workers has 15+ years of job tenure in the durable manufacturing sector (BLS, 2013, Document ID 0672) and that all those with 15+ years of job tenure and current exposure over 0.2 would have had at least 5 years of such exposure in the past. OSHA uses the same estimate in calculating the cost savings in this PEA.
For purposes of costing this consultation, OSHA used the marginal costs of a physician's time (wages plus fringe benefits) of $132.79 per hour (Physicians and Surgeons, All Other, SOC: 29-1069); the physician's cost for the 15 minute consultation is therefore $33.20 ((15/60) × $132.79). Similarly the worker's time for this consultation, with a production worker's hourly wage of $24.16 (updated from Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000), results in a cost for the employee's time of $6.04 ((15/60) × $24.16). Hence the total employer cost savings of avoiding this consultation is $39.24 ($33.20 + $6.04). These cost savings are included in Table V-16 below.
Table V-16 also lists the direct unit cost savings for a clinical evaluation with a specialist at a CBD diagnostic center.
In addition, as shown in Table V-16, there are cost savings for avoided lost productivity and travel.
The total cost of a clinical evaluation with a specialist at a CBD diagnostic center is equal to the cost of the examination plus the cost of lost work-time and the cost for the employee to travel to the CBD diagnostic center. For the two latter types of costs, 75 percent were based on out-of-town travel to a CBD diagnostic center and 25 percent were based on a local CBD diagnostic center. The resulting weighted-average cost-saving estimates of $7,420.62 for testing at a CBD diagnostic center are presented in Table V-16.
Employees who are not already diagnosed with CBD can be referred to a CBD diagnostic center if the employee is confirmed positive (sensitized to beryllium). OSHA estimated in the 2016 FEA that during the first year that the medical surveillance provisions are in effect 14.0 percent of the 640 workers who are tested for beryllium sensitization will be confirmed positive for sensitization (through BeLPT tests) and referred to a CBD diagnostic center.
Based on these unit costs and the number of employees requiring medical surveillance estimated above, OSHA estimated that the removal by this proposal of the medical surveillance and referral provisions would result in an annualized total cost savings of $1,414,112.
For affected construction and shipyard establishments, if an employee works in a job with airborne exposure at or above the action level, is diagnosed with CBD or confirmed positive, and provides documentation of the employee's diagnosis of CBD or confirmed positive status to the employer, that employee is eligible for medical removal and has two choices:
i. Removal from the current job, or
ii. Remain in a job with airborne exposure at or above the action level while wearing a respirator in accordance with paragraph (g) of the standards.
If the employee chooses removal, the employee must accept comparable work if such work is available. If comparable work is not available the employer must offer the employee paid leave for six months or until such time as comparable work becomes available, whichever comes first. During that six-month period, whether the employee is re-assigned or placed on paid leave, the employer must continue to maintain the employee's base earnings, seniority and other rights and benefits that existed at the time of removal.
Revoking the medical removal provision would provide cost savings due to workers no longer being eligible for medical removal. OSHA estimated that, under the January 2017 final standards for construction and shipyards, 332 workers would be eligible for medical removal in the first year and 26 workers each year would be eligible in subsequent years. OSHA estimated an average medical removal cost per worker assuming that 75 percent of firms would be able to find the employee an alternate job, and the remaining 25 percent of firms would not. With updated hourly wages for a production worker of $24.16 (Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000) and for a clerical worker of $22.53 (File Clerks, SOC: 43-4071), the weighted average of these costs is $7,266 per worker (0.75 × $1,363 + $273
Based on the above unit costs, OSHA estimates that revoking the medical removal provision in this proposal would result in an annualized total cost savings of $471,601.
In the new beryllium standards, OSHA included familiarization costs to account for employers' time to understand the ancillary provisions and the other new and revised components of the applicable new standard.
As some employers may already have been reviewing the 2016 FEA, in an effort to be conservative, OSHA has not assumed any familiarization cost savings. In the 2016 FEA, the amount of familiarization time required depended, in part, on the range of beryllium-related operations. As the focus of this proposal is on removing the ancillary requirements, this variability of required familiarization time has been largely eliminated. Employers would thus only need to spend a brief amount of time reviewing this proposal (if it became final) to look at the changes from the 2016 FEA. Therefore, OSHA expects that if this proposal is adopted, employers would spend one-tenth of one hour per firm (or 6 minutes) reviewing its changed requirements.
Table V-17 shows the unit costs, by establishment size, of reviewing the changes in this proposal as a result of removing the ancillary provisions. These costs will likely be one-time costs incurred during the first year in which this PEA becomes final, but the aggregate costs are annualized for consistency with the other estimates for this proposal. Based on the unit familiarization (negative) cost savings in Table V-17, the total annualized familiarization costs of this proposal are estimated to be $1,346.
As specified in both the new shipyard and construction beryllium standards and the existing OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.1200 on hazard communication, the employer must provide initial training and repeat annual training for each employee who is, or who can reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne beryllium. The initial training is required by the time of initial assignment, and will be applicable to affected shipyard and construction employers.
The cost savings track the training costs in the 2016 FEA to educate employees about the new requirements of beryllium standards. This additional training would not be necessary if the only impact on construction and shipyards is a change to the PEL. In the 2016 FEA, OSHA determined that training, which includes hazard communication training, will likely be conducted by in-house safety or supervisory staff with the use of training modules and videos. It is estimated that this training will last, on average, eight hours. (Note that this estimate does not include the time taken for hazard communication training that is already required by 29 CFR 1910.1200.) The Agency anticipated that establishments will be able to purchase sufficient training materials at an average cost of $2.12 per worker, encompassing the cost of handouts, video presentations, and training manuals and exercises. For initial and periodic training, OSHA estimated an average class size of five workers (each at a wage of $24.16 (updated from Production Occupations, SOC: 51-0000)) with one instructor (at a wage of $41.34 (Median Wage for Training and Development Specialists, SOC: 13-1151)) over an eight hour period. The estimated per-worker cost of initial training is $259.43 (= (8 × $24.16) + (8 × $41.34/5) + $2.12).
Annual retraining of workers is also required by the new beryllium standards. OSHA estimated the same unit costs as for initial training, so retraining would require the same per-worker cost of $259.43.
Finally, using these calculations, as well as accounting for industry-specific baseline compliance rates (from Section V.B. of this PEA), and based on a 25.7 percent new hire rate (BLS 2016a, annual manufacturing new hire rate),
As shown in Table V-19, the total annualized cost savings of this proposal, using a 3 percent discount rate, is estimated to be about $11.0 million.
OSHA analyzed the stream of (un-annualized) compliance costs for the first ten years after the rule would take effect. As shown in Table V-20, compliance cost savings are expected to decline from year 1 to year 2 by more than half after the initial set of capital and program start-up expenditures has been incurred. Costs are then essentially flat with relatively small variations for the following years.
Table V-21 breaks out total costs by each application group for the first ten years. Each application group follows the same pattern of a sharp decrease in compliance costs between years 1 and 2, and then remains relatively flat for the remaining years.
In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables V-22 and V-23 present—for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively—total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS industry code and employment size class (all establishments, small entities, and very small entities).
As shown in these tables, the choice of discount rate has only a minor effect on total annualized compliance costs—for example, annualized costs for all establishments increase from $11.0 million using a 3 percent discount rate to $11.5 million using a 7 percent discount rate, and decline to $10.8 million using a 0 percent discount rate.
In addition to using a 3 percent discount rate in its cost analysis, OSHA estimated compliance cost savings using alternative discount rates of 7 percent and 0 percent. Tables V-24 and V-25 present—for 7 percent and 0 percent discount rates, respectively—total annualized cost savings for affected employers by NAICS industry code and type of cost savings.
In the 2016 FEA, OSHA estimated that, in addition to other health benefits, the rule would, at the final steady state after a gradual 45-year phase in period, prevent 86 cases of fatal Chronic Beryllium Disease, 46 cases of non-fatal CBD morbidity, and 4 fatal cases of lung cancer annually, the large majority of these cases falling within General Industry (
This distribution was due both to the much larger number of workers exposed in general industry, compared to construction and shipyards, and uncertainties about how many residual benefits would remain in abrasive blasting operations after existing regulatory requirements were taken into account. In short, the net benefits attributable to these sectors were both small and uncertain.
In the FEA, OSHA expressed uncertainty about whether there would be benefits from reduced airborne exposure related to abrasive blasting operations in both shipyards and construction, as well as a limited number of welders in the shipyards sector.
Welders in shipyards also have some exposures above the PEL. However, employers are already required to provide welders with ventilation and air-line respirators under 29 CFR 1915.51. Nevertheless, in the cost section of the 2016 FEA, OSHA again provided a conservative estimate for the cost of one new respirator and added a small increment to benefits as result of the new PEL.
As explained in the Summary and Explanation of this preamble, OSHA has decided to retain the 0.2 μg/m
In the FEA, the Agency attributed some reduction in disease to the standards' new lower PEL and the standards' ancillary provisions. However, as explained in the FEA, there was uncertainty of the efficacy of the ancillary requirements across different work environments. For General Industry, the efficacy was estimated to range from no effect to reducing as much as 90 percent of the CBD cases not averted by the new PEL. The FEA referenced several case studies from general industry where benefits at the high end of this scale had come to pass empirically, on top of whatever engineering controls had been implemented. These benefits were attributed most specifically to the introduction of a combination of dermal and respiratory PPE, as well as more aggressive housekeeping.
Throughout the rulemaking process, OSHA has been aware that the situations in shipyards and construction may be substantially different from those in general industry. Baseline usage of respirators and PPE is far higher in construction and shipyards. While the general industry “model” for the efficacy of the ancillary provisions may apply relatively well at other places in general industry (since it was based largely on the experience at Materion facilities), it might be less effective for construction and shipyards. As indicated in the FEA, most workers in construction and shipyard abrasive blasting and shipyard welding operations are already required by other standards to wear respirators, and it is unclear how many of the abrasive blasting workers would benefit from additional dermal protection requirements. As a result, compared to the earlier (2015) PEA, the Agency estimated a much lower range of benefits to the ancillary provisions for construction and shipyards. Between the 2015 PEA and the FEA, the Agency judged that the benefits estimated for abrasive blasting should be even lower than in the 2015 PEA (which had estimated them at half that of general industry, or a range of 0 to 45 percent), and halved them again to 0 to 22.5 percent in the FEA. The high end of this range was simply an estimate of 25 percent of the range used in general industry, as a way of accounting for the extensive use of respirators and PPE in these two sectors.
Upon further review, OSHA believes that this estimate of 0 to 22.5 percent is too high. While the FEA estimates recognized a high baseline level of compliance, the benefit estimates did not account for compliance with PPE and housekeeping provisions by shipyard welders and construction and shipyard abrasive blasting workers. As a result, based on OSHA's preliminary revised baseline compliance estimates, there should have been limited to no benefits in terms of reduced cases of CBD attributed to the ancillary provisions for the construction and shipyards standards in the January 2017 rule. OSHA also, upon review, found that shipyard welders already use extensive PPE, and thus, based on OSHA's preliminary revised baseline compliance estimates, should have had more limited benefits attributable to the ancillary provisions than originally estimated in the January 2017 rule. This issue of baseline compliance, along with the estimates underlying OSHA's proposed revised baseline compliance rates, was discussed in section V.B, Profile of Affected Application Groups, Establishments, and Employees, of this preamble. Based on the proposed revised compliance rates discussed there, OSHA has therefore preliminarily concluded that abrasive blasting workers in construction and shipyards and welders in shipyards will have limited to no foregone benefits as a result of withdrawing the ancillary provisions.
Using the proposed revised baseline compliance rates in section V.B of this PEA would also lower the estimate of benefits for the construction and shipyard sectors by lowering the baseline estimate of illnesses and fatalities. (Such an issue was not relevant for general industry because there were not such high levels of baseline compliance.)
For the reasons discussed above, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that there are limited to no foregone benefits (due to reducing the number of cases of CBD) as a result of revoking the ancillary provisions of the beryllium final standards for Construction and Shipyards because based on the proposed revised baseline compliance estimates presented in section V.B. of this PEA, the benefits attributed to the ancillary provisions in those sectors were overestimated. The Agency continues to believe that the new PEL will ensure that workers receive additional protection from exposure to beryllium.
OSHA is proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions in shipyards and amend the Z Table with the new lower PEL and STEL. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed removal of these provisions for shipyards from the new beryllium standards would reduce costs for shipyard employers. Because these revisions do not create new requirements, OSHA has preliminarily determined that neither new costs nor compliance burdens would be incurred by shipyard employers. Instead there would be cost savings as compared to the January 9, 2017 final standard for occupational exposure to beryllium in shipyards.
OSHA is proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions in construction and amend Appendix A of 1926.55 with the new lower PEL and STEL. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed removal of these provisions for the construction sector would reduce costs for construction employers. Because these revisions do not create new requirements, OSHA has preliminarily determined that neither new costs nor compliance burdens would be incurred by construction
Based on the preceding discussion, it is clear that no shipyard or construction employer would incur new costs as a result of this proposal beyond the minimal cost of familiarization. Because there are no new requirements, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed rule is economically feasible. The Agency welcomes comment on this preliminary finding.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Consistent with Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) we have estimated the total annualized cost savings of this proposed rule, using a 3 percent discount rate, to be about $11.0 million, or using a 7 percent discount rate, to be about $11.5 million. Therefore, this proposed rule, if finalized, is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
The current beryllium standards for occupational exposure to beryllium—general industry (29 CFR 1910.1024), construction (29 CFR 1926.1124), and shipyard (29 CFR 1915.1024)—contain collection of information (paperwork) requirements that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), and approved under OMB Control number 1218-0267. The proposal would revoke the beryllium standards, and their collections of information, in the shipyard and construction sectors, while retaining the new lower permissible exposure limits. The PRA defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it, and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512). The major collections of information found in the standards are listed below.
OSHA prepared and submitted a revised Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB removing the Beryllium Shipyard and Construction collections of information from the existing OMB approved paperwork package in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Agency solicits comments on the removal of the collection of information requirements and reduction in estimated burden hours associated with these requirements, including comments on the following items:
• Whether collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and transmitting information (78 FR 56438).
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the following paragraphs provide information about this ICR.
1.
2.
3.
The proposed ICR does not contain the collection of information requirements in the construction and shipyard industries. The proposal to remove standards for construction and shipyards is based on the Agency's reconsideration of the need for ancillary provisions in those sectors.
Below is a summary of the collection of information requirements identified in the currently approved Beryllium Information Collection. In this proposed rulemaking, the Agency is proposing to remove the construction and shipyard standards and retain the general industry standard in the Beryllium rule. A copy of this ICR is available to the public at:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Members of the public who wish to comment on the revisions to the paperwork requirements in this proposal must send their written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, OSHA (RIN-1218 -AB76), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email:
To access the docket to read or download comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination, including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork determinations in detail) use the procedures described under the section of this notice titled
OSHA reviewed this proposed beryllium rule according to the most recent Executive Order (“E.O.”) on Federalism, E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). The E.O. requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States before taking actions that would restrict States' policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is of national scope. The E.O. allows Federal agencies to preempt State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. In such cases, Federal agencies must limit preemption of State law to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the “Act” or “OSH Act”), 29 U.S.C. 667, Congress expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards. OSHA refers to States that obtain Federal approval for such plans as “State-Plan States.” 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational safety and health standards developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are free to develop and enforce their own occupational safety and health standards.
This proposed rule would revoke the ancillary provisions for the construction and shipyard industries, but retain the recently revised PEL of 0.2 μg/m
This proposed rule complies with E.O. 13132. In States without OSHA-approved State plans, Congress expressly provides for OSHA standards to preempt State occupational safety and health standards in areas addressed by the Federal standards. In these States, this rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated by the Agency. In States with OSHA-approved State plans, this rulemaking would not limit State policy options to adopt stricter standards.
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent amendment to an existing standard, the States and U.S. territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans (“State-Plan States”) must revise their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment. The State standard must be at least as effective as the Federal standard or amendment, and must be promulgated within 6 months of the publication date of the final Federal rule. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). Currently, there are 28 State-Plan States.
Of the 28 States and territories with OSHA-approved State plans, 22 cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The remaining six states and territories cover only public-sector employees: Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Maine, New York, and the Virgin Islands.
This rule, if adopted as proposed, would eliminate the ancillary provisions for the construction and shipyard industries, but retain the recently revised PELs of 0.2 μg/m
If the proposal is adopted, State-Plan states may nonetheless choose to conform to the January 9, 2017 construction and shipyards ancillary provisions, although they would no longer be required to do so.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”), 2 U.S.C. 1532, an agency must prepare a written “qualitative and quantitative assessment” of any regulation creating a mandate that “may result in the expenditure by the State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation)” in any one year before promulgating a final rule. OSHA's rule does not place a mandate on State or local governments, for purposes of the UMRA, because OSHA cannot enforce its regulations or standards on State or local governments. 29 U.S.C. 652(5). Under voluntary agreement with OSHA, some States require public sector entities to comply with State standards, and these agreements specify that these State standards must be at least as protective as OSHA standards. The OSH Act does not cover tribal governments in the performance of traditional governmental functions, though it does cover tribal governments when they engage in commercial activity. However, this proposed rule will not require tribal governments to expend, in the aggregate, $100,000,000 or more in any one year for their commercial activities. Thus, this proposed rule does not trigger the requirements of UMRA based on its impact on State, local, or tribal governments.
Based on the analysis presented in the Preliminary Economic Analysis (
E.O. 13045, 66 FR 19931 (Apr. 23, 2003), requires that Federal agencies submitting covered regulatory actions to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) for review pursuant to E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), must provide OIRA with (1) an evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects that the planned regulation may have on children, and (2) an explanation of why the planned
This proposed beryllium rule would not be economically significant under E.O. 12866 (
OSHA has reviewed this proposed beryllium rule according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13175 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), and determined that it does not have “tribal implications” as defined in that order. The OSH Act does not cover tribal governments in the performance of traditional governmental functions, so the proposal will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes in their sovereign capacity, 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. On the other hand, employees in commercial businesses owned by tribes or tribal members will receive the same protections and benefits of the standard as all other covered employees.
OSHA encourages members of the public to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments on the proposal.
This section of the preamble explains the changes that OSHA proposes to make to the beryllium standards, including Agency's explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed changes.
As noted in the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA has evidence that beryllium exposure above 0.2 μg/m
In addition, this NPRM provides stakeholders with an additional opportunity to offer comments on the January 9, 2017 construction and shipyard standards, including comments on the regulatory text and whether the ancillary provisions are necessary in these sectors.
Despite the low concentrations of beryllium in the blast material, airborne concentrations of beryllium have been measured above the previous TWA PEL of 2 μg/m
Eighty-three percent of the abrasive media cleanup worker samples were non-detectable for beryllium. One cleanup worker had an 8-hour TWA sample result of 1.1 µg/m
As described in Section 10, Appendix 2 of the Technological Feasibility chapter of the January 9, 2017 final rule (Document ID 2042), 127 personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples collected on welders welding non-specified or non-beryllium-containing materials in U.S. shipyards and Navy facilities range from 0.02 μg/m
As noted in the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA has evidence that workers are exposed to beryllium above 0.2 μg/m
In comments on the 2015 proposal, the American Blasting Manufacturers Alliance argued that OSHA had not established significant risk associated with blasting operations. In particular, it argued that “the Alliance members have no history of employees with beryllium sensitization or beryllium-related illnesses. Indeed, the Alliance members are not aware of a single documented case of beryllium sensitization or beryllium-related illness associated with coal or copper slag abrasive production among their employees, or their customers' employees working with the products of Alliance members” (Document ID 1673, p. 9). However, ABMA presented no studies or rigorous scientific evidence to support this statement, and as OSHA noted in the January 9, 2017 final rule, such anecdotal reports are not compelling evidence, especially where there is no surveillance program, required or otherwise (see 82 FR 2642). Rather, the best available evidence indicates that there is a significant risk of CBD and lung cancer to workers in construction and shipyards based on the exposure levels observed. However, OSHA welcomes further data and comment on the risks of sensitization, CBD, and lung cancer among workers involved in abrasive blasting and welding operations in shipyards and construction.
In the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA identified that the requirements for new PELs and for ancillary provisions such as medical surveillance, personal protective clothing and equipment, and beryllium-specific training provided needed protections (82 FR 2637). OSHA stated that it adopted ancillary provisions for construction and shipyards “to ensure that workers exposed to beryllium in the construction and shipyard industries are provided protection that is comparable to the protection afforded workers in general industry.” (82 FR 2639-40). However, given that other OSHA construction standards cover abrasive blasting operations, where the available data shows that beryllium exposures primarily occur, OSHA is further considering the need for ancillary provisions for the construction sector.
Similarly, abrasive blasting in shipyards and welding in shipyards are already regulated by OSHA in various ways that limit exposure to beryllium among workers in these operations, and OSHA is also giving further consideration to the need for the ancillary standards for those operations.
Workers in the construction sector are protected by the permissible exposure limits (PELs) set forth in 29 CFR 1926.55 Appendix A. The January 9, 2017 final rule lowered the PELs to 0.2 μg/m
The ventilation standard in construction at 1926.57(f)(2)(ii) requires “[t]he concentration of respirable dust or fume in the breathing zone of the abrasive-blasting operator or any other worker” to remain “below the levels specified in 1926.55,” which OSHA proposes to lower to 0.2 μg/m
Furthermore, the general industry Respiratory Protection standard at 1910.134 applies to construction and requires employers to provide a respirator to each employee when necessary to protect the employee's health. Additionally, OSHA requires construction employers to train their employees in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions. 29 CFR 1926.21. In particular, section 1926.21(b)(3) requires employers to instruct employees who handle harmful substances “regarding the safe handling and use, and be made aware of the potential hazards, personal hygiene, and personal protective measures.” The hazard communication standard, which applies to the construction industry, also requires training, including the hazards of the chemicals in the work area and the “appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used.” 1910.1200(h)(3).
Workers in shipyards are protected by the PELs set forth in 29 CFR 1915.1000 Table Z. In the January 9, 2017 final rule, OSHA lowered the PELs to 0.2 μg/m
Abrasive blasting in shipyards is covered by the Mechanical paint removers standard. 29 CFR 1915.34. OSHA expects that most abrasive blasting in shipyards involves paint removal. In a comment on the previous proposal, the Shipbuilders Council of America commented that “[i]n shipyards beryllium is primarily encountered in in abrasive blasting operations. Coal slag particulates are used as a blast grit for removing paints, coatings, and rust from steel components prior to painting and coating.” (Document ID 1618, p. 3). OSHA seeks comment on whether there are abrasive blasting operations in shipyards that are not covered by 1915.34. The shipyards standard at 29 CFR 1915.34(c)(3) requires respiratory protection and other appropriate personal protective equipment in abrasive blasting operations for both abrasive blasting operators and helpers working in the area. The general industry respirator standard at 1910.134 applies to shipyards and requires employers to provide a respirator to each employee when necessary to protect the employee's health. Additionally, the hazard communication standard requires training, including the hazards of the chemicals in the work area and the “appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used.” 1910.1200(h)(3).
Certain provisions of OSHA's Ventilation standard for abrasive blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)) also apply to abrasive blasting in shipyards. OSHA guidance on the application of the exhaust ventilation paragraph of the general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.94(a)(4)) states that all blast-cleaning enclosures must have sufficient exhaust ventilation to prevent a buildup of dust-laden air and reduce the concentrations of hazardous air contaminants, as well as to increase operator visibility and prevent leakage of dust to the outside of the enclosure. The Ventilation standard also contains housekeeping requirements in the subparagraph on abrasive blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)(7)). Compliance with those housekeeping measures during abrasive blasting should also reduce the amount of beryllium-containing dust to be cleaned, thereby protecting clean-up workers who clean spent abrasive blasting media after blasting operations are completed. In addition, exhaust ventilation systems must be constructed, installed, inspected, and maintained according to the OSHA Ventilation standard for abrasive blasting (29 CFR 1910.94(a)). OSHA seeks comment on current industry practices and legal requirements regarding PPE use for abrasive blasting workers, including pot tenders and clean-up workers.
Abrasive blasting sometimes occurs in confined spaces in shipyard work. OSHA's standard covering confined and enclosed spaces in shipyard employment requires an employer to ensure that confined or enclosed spaces that contain or have contained toxic liquids, gases, or solids are inspected visually by a competent person to determine the presence of toxic residue contaminants and tested by a competent person before entry by an employee to determine the air concentration of toxic substances. 29 CFR 1915.12. Employees may not enter a space whose atmosphere exceeds a PEL except for emergency rescue, or for a short duration for installation of ventilation equipment, provided that the atmosphere in the space is monitored continuously and respiratory protection and other necessary and appropriate PPE and clothing are provided. If the beryllium PEL is exceeded in a space, the space must be labeled “Not Safe for Workers” and ventilation must be provided to reduce air concentrations to below the PEL. OSHA requests information on the prevalence of blasting in confined or enclosed spaces in shipyards.
Welding in shipyards is likewise covered by OSHA standards. OSHA found, after a review of shipyard personal protective equipment requirements, that gloves are required under 29 CFR 1915.157(a) to protect workers from hazards faced by welders, such as thermal burns. 29 CFR 1915.51 requires that ventilation be used to keep welding fumes and smoke within safe limits, and 29 CFR 1915.51(d)(2)(iv) specifically covers welding involving beryllium: “Because of its high toxicity, work involving beryllium shall be done with both local exhaust ventilation and air line respirators.” These safe limits in 1915.51 are defined by the PELs in 29 CFR 1915.1000 Table Z, which currently has a beryllium TWA PEL of 2.0 μg/m
Under 29 CFR 1911.10(a), OSHA must consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) “in the formulation of a rule to promulgate, modify, or revoke a standard.” In May 2014, OSHA presented options to ACCSH for the promulgation of the beryllium rule. These options were (1) reducing the exposure limits in construction to the same level as the proposed exposure limits in general industry, (2) reducing the exposure limits and including a medical surveillance requirement, and (3) including construction in the scope of the rule and including the same ancillary provisions as in general industry. OSHA discussed the types of ancillary provisions that would be included but did not provide regulatory text. Some ACCSH members asked
The January 9, 2017 final rule followed ACCSH's recommendation. However, ACCSH's recommendation was not unanimous, and as discussed above, OSHA is reconsidering the ancillary provisions for construction. This is based on the fact that the available data show exposures of concern only in abrasive blasting operations, and workers engaged in those operations are already provided protection by a number of other standards. OSHA notes that this proposal is the first option that was presented to ACCSH at the May 2014 meeting.
OSHA proposes, based on feedback from interested parties and a reevaluation of the applicability of existing OSHA standards, to remove the ancillary provisions of the comprehensive health standards in both construction and shipyards, but maintain the new lower PEL of 0.2 μg/m
Because OSHA has determined that significant risk remains at the PEL of 0.2 μg/m
OSHA provided adequate legal notice to interested parties in its 2015 NPRM by including regulatory alternatives that expanded the scope of the standard to the construction and shipyard sectors and including preliminary technological feasibility and economic feasibility analyses for those sectors. Many parties took note and commented on the application of the standard to construction and shipyards (
While OSHA continues to believe that the best available evidence in the rulemaking record in January 9, 2017 supported the expansion of the scope of the rule to construction and shipyards, it is also within OSHA's discretion to reevaluate that decision in light of the limited data and concern from the regulated community. OSHA therefore seeks comment on this proposal to revoke the ancillary provisions for construction and shipyards while retaining the lower PEL and STEL. In particular, OSHA seeks input from interested stakeholders on the degree to which each provision, or combination thereof, provides (or does not provide) additional protections to exposed workers. OSHA requests that commenters provide data to support their position. In addition, OSHA seeks information on the steps that employers are currently taking to protect exposed employees. OSHA also seeks additional information and data commenters may have on the costs of compliance with the measures required by the January 9, 2017 final rule, including in particular the costs that small entities would incur.
In addition to the proposal in this notice, OSHA is considering extending the compliance dates in the January 9, 2017 final rule by a year for the construction and shipyard standards. This would give affected employers additional time to come into compliance with its requirements, which could be warranted by the uncertainty created by this proposal. OSHA also seeks comment on that possibility, and also the amount of additional time employers would need to come into compliance with the current proposal, if adopted. As noted in the introduction above, while the entire beryllium rule will go into effect on May 20, 2017, OSHA will not enforce the January 9, 2017 shipyard and construction standards without further notice while this new rulemaking is underway.
Beryllium, Cancer, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health, Occupational safety and health.
This document was prepared under the direction of Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
The Agency issues the sections under the following authorities: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3704; 33 U.S.C. 941; Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)); and 29 CFR part 1911.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter XVII of Title 29, parts 1915 and 1926, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 941; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754); 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.
(a)(2)
The revisions read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 3704; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912); 29 CFR part 1911; and 5 U.S.C. 553, as applicable.
Section 1926.61 also issued under 49 U.S.C. 5101
Section 1926.62 also issued under 42 U.S.C. 4853.
Section 1926.65 also issued under 126 of Pub. L. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613.
The revisions read as follows:
| 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 |