Federal Register Vol. 82, No.123,
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 123 (June 28, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 123 (June 28, 2017)
| Page Range | 29225-29362 | |
| FR Document |
![122 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 2017 / Notices
further funding for clinical trials, and an assist the company in establishing its provides a deadline to comply with
extensive amount of time to even reach manufacturing capabilities. Further, the recent regulatory changes that prohibit
the stage of applying to the FDA for Order requires that the parties transfer agencies from using prepayment
approval. The regulatory approval all confidential business information to auditors that have any affiliation with,
process itself can also be time- Terumo, as well as provide access to or financial interest, in the
consuming as the FDA reviews the employees who possess or are able to transportation company (providing the
volume of material and data a company identify such information. Terumo also transportation services) for which a
submits in support of its application. will have the right to interview and offer prepayment audit is being conducted.
The Consent Agreement employment to employees associated DATES: Effective: January 3, 2017.
with St. Jude’s vascular closure device FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
The Consent Agreement remedies the business and Abbott’s steerable sheath Ron Siegel, Program Analyst, Office of
competitive concerns raised by Abbott’s business. Government-wide Policy (MAF), Office
proposed acquisition of St. Jude by The parties must accomplish the
requiring that the parties divest to of Asset and Transportation
divestiture no later than forty-five days Management, General Services
Terumo all of the assets and resources after the consummation of the Proposed
needed for it to become an independent, Administration at 202–357–9540, or via
Acquisition. If the Commission email at ron.siegel@gsa.gov. Please cite
viable, and effective competitor in the determines that Terumo is not an
U.S. markets for vascular closure FMR Bulletin D–03.
acceptable acquirer, or that the manner SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMR
devices and steerable sheaths. It also of the divestiture is not acceptable, the
requires Abbott to provide notice if it Bulletin D–03 provides guidance to all
Order requires the parties to unwind the agencies (including the Department of
intends to acquire ACT’s lesion- sale and accomplish the divestiture
assessing ablation catheter assets. Defense) and wholly-owned
within 180 days of the date the Order Government corporations as defined in
Terumo possesses the industry becomes final to another Commission-
experience and reputation necessary to 31 United States Code (U.S.C.) 101, et
approved acquirer. seq. and 31 U.S.C. 9101(3). This bulletin
replace competition that would be lost To ensure compliance with the Order,
in the U.S. markets for vascular closure provides agencies notice of a
the Commission has agreed to appoint
devices and steerable sheaths. Terumo governmentwide policy revision for
an Interim Monitor to ensure that
is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. It has mandatory transportation prepayment
Abbott and St. Jude comply with all of
been active in the U.S. medical device audit plans, and provides a deadline for
their obligations pursuant to the
market for over thirty years and has a compliance with regulatory changes
Consent Agreement and to keep the
U.S. subsidiary based in Somerset, New provided in FMR 102–118,
Commission informed about the status
Jersey. Terumo offers a portfolio of Transportation Payment and Audit.
of the transfer of the rights and assets to
products that are highly complementary FMR Bulletin D–03 and all other FMR
Terumo. Further, the Order allows the
to the vascular closure and steerable bulletins are located at http://
Commission to appoint a Divestiture
sheath products being acquired but does www.gsa.gov/fmrbulletins.
Trustee to accomplish the divestiture
not sell any competing products.
should the parties fail to comply with Kevin Kampschroer,
Through its Interventional Systems
their divestiture obligations. Lastly, the Associate Administrator (Acting), Office of
business unit, Terumo manufactures
Order terminates after ten years. Government-wide Policy, General Services
and sells guidewires, catheters, and
The purpose of this analysis is to Administration.
sheaths, as well as other vascular access
facilitate public comment on the [FR Doc. 2016–31786 Filed 12–30–16; 8:45 am]
devices. As a result, it currently sells its
proposed Consent Agreement, and it is BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
products to many of the same customers
not intended to constitute an official
as Abbott and St. Jude. Terumo is thus
interpretation of the proposed Order or
well positioned to restore the benefits of
to modify its terms in any way. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
competition that would be lost through
the Proposed Acquisition. By direction of the Commission.
Pursuant to the Order, Terumo will April J. Tabor, Request for Public Input on the
receive all rights and assets related to St. Application of the Criminal Conflict of
Acting Secretary.
Jude’s vascular closure device business Interest Prohibition to Certain
[FR Doc. 2016–31800 Filed 12–30–16; 8:45 am]
and Abbott’s steerable sheath business, Beneficial Interests in Discretionary
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
including all of the intellectual property Trusts.
used in those businesses. In addition, AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics
Terumo will take over part of the facility GENERAL SERVICES (OGE).
in Caguas, Puerto Rico where St. Jude ADMINISTRATION Notice of request for public
ACTION:
currently manufactures most of its comments.
vascular closure device products. In [Notice–MA–2016–08; Docket No. 2016–
order to ensure continuity of supply for 0002; Sequence No. 31] SUMMARY: This notice and request seeks
certain vascular closure devices and input from members of the public with
Federal Management Regulations; expertise in trust law concerning the
components that are not currently
Transportation Prepayment Audit following question: Are there any
manufactured in the Puerto Rico
Requirements circumstances under which an eligible
facility, the Order requires that St. Jude
income beneficiary of a discretionary
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
supply Terumo with finished vascular AGENCY: Office of Government-wide
closure devices and components for up Policy, General Services Administration trust might, in the absence of a vested
to two years while Terumo transitions to (GSA). remainder interest, be able to compel
independent manufacturing. ACTION: Notice of a bulletin. the trust to make a distribution or
To ensure that the divestiture is payment? OGE will take into
successful, the Order requires the SUMMARY: GSA has issued a guidance for consideration all relevant expert input
parties to enter into a transitional agencies and wholly-owned submitted by the public within 60 days
services agreement with Terumo to Government corporations, which of the date of this notice. To be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:14 Dec 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JAN1.SGM 03JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_123/page/1.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-01 14:44:29
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 14:44:29
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 29251 - Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature | |
| 82 FR 29297 - Office of the Director; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29361 - Notice of Availability of the Federal Aviation Administration Adoption and Record of Decision of Department of Navy's Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment To Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground: Task Force Live Fire and Maneuver Training, Twentynine Palms | |
| 82 FR 29301 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Request for Federal Assistance Form-How To Process Mission Assignments in Federal Disaster Operations | |
| 82 FR 29328 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-North American Crossbow Federation | |
| 82 FR 29328 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Platform for NFV Project, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 29328 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International Standards | |
| 82 FR 29329 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-fd.io Project, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 29303 - Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the First Quarter of Calendar Year 2017 | |
| 82 FR 29248 - Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda; Department of Justice Task Force on Regulatory Reform Under E.O. 13777 | |
| 82 FR 29261 - Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Proposed Delay of Compliance Date | |
| 82 FR 29278 - Defense Innovation Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting | |
| 82 FR 29311 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
| 82 FR 29312 - Temporary Closure and Temporary Restrictions of Specific Uses on Public Lands for the Burning Man Event (Permitted Event), Pershing County, NV | |
| 82 FR 29293 - Proposed De minimis Settlement With Sunoco (R&M), LLC at Lammers Barrel Site in Beavercreek, Ohio | |
| 82 FR 29317 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Wyoming | |
| 82 FR 29319 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho | |
| 82 FR 29312 - Filing of Plats of Survey: California | |
| 82 FR 29317 - Filing of Plats of Survey, California | |
| 82 FR 29318 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Colorado | |
| 82 FR 29316 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado | |
| 82 FR 29319 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 29295 - Availability of Program Application Instructions for Tribal MIPPA Program Funds | |
| 82 FR 29277 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19425 | |
| 82 FR 29296 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single Supplement to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; The Eldercare Locator | |
| 82 FR 29329 - John Warren Cox, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 82 FR 29293 - Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 29290 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 29291 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 29292 - Pioneer Valley, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 29285 - Applications for New Awards; International Research and Studies Program-Research, Studies, and Surveys | |
| 82 FR 29344 - Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend Station, Unit 1 | |
| 82 FR 29345 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM | |
| 82 FR 29294 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegate Authority | |
| 82 FR 29225 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 3 | |
| 82 FR 29249 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 3 | |
| 82 FR 29277 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 29361 - Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of Railroads | |
| 82 FR 29327 - Ripe Olives From Spain; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 82 FR 29334 - Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions | |
| 82 FR 29331 - Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions | |
| 82 FR 29362 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions of Proposed Highway in California | |
| 82 FR 29276 - 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program Commencement of Phase 2: The Voting District Project | |
| 82 FR 29285 - Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chuitna Coal Mine Project, Alaska | |
| 82 FR 29240 - Safety Zone; Cleveland Construction Super Boat Grand Prix, Lake Erie, Fairport, OH | |
| 82 FR 29279 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 29295 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 29344 - NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Meeting. | |
| 82 FR 29359 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Passport Demand Forecasting Survey | |
| 82 FR 29360 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Overseas Pre-Assignment Medical History and Examination, Non-Foreign Service Personnel and Their Family Members | |
| 82 FR 29310 - Announcement of Public Meeting via Teleconference: North American Wetlands Conservation Council | |
| 82 FR 29237 - Mandatory Declassification Review | |
| 82 FR 29359 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “KLIMT & RODIN: An Artistic Encounter” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 29355 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Make Clarifications and Corrections to the Government Securities Division Rulebook, the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division Clearing Rules and the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division EPN Rules | |
| 82 FR 29350 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Swap Margin Segregation Account for the Segregation of Swap Margin With Respect to Deposited Securities | |
| 82 FR 29347 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 3, To Amend Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Modify the Requirements That Apply to Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public Offering | |
| 82 FR 29280 - Department of Defense Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory (STRL) Personnel Management Demonstration (Demo) Project Program | |
| 82 FR 29322 - Summary of Commission Practice Relating to Administrative Protective Orders | |
| 82 FR 29321 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 29320 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 29322 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 29299 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 29300 - Missouri; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 29275 - Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29302 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Monthly Report on Naturalization Papers | |
| 82 FR 29256 - Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets | |
| 82 FR 29354 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section III of the Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 29355 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Related to Auctions in IEX-Listed Securities, Dissemination of Auction-Related Market Data, and Provisions Governing Trading Halts and Pauses | |
| 82 FR 29348 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7014(j) | |
| 82 FR 29259 - Regulatory Review Schedule | |
| 82 FR 29254 - CAN-SPAM Rule | |
| 82 FR 29251 - Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act | |
| 82 FR 29230 - Energy Labeling Rule | |
| 82 FR 29298 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29299 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29297 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 29298 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 29274 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 29296 - Solicitation for Written Comments on the Development of Healthy People 2030 | |
| 82 FR 29301 - The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 29330 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection; Dispensing Records of Individual Practitioners | |
| 82 FR 29237 - Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone | |
| 82 FR 29236 - Definition of Employee Pension Benefit Plan Under ERISA | |
| 82 FR 29229 - Amendment of Multiple Restricted Areas; Townsend, GA | |
| 82 FR 29238 - Safety Zone; City of Oswego Independence Day Celebration; Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY | |
| 82 FR 29242 - Fees for Water Infrastructure Project Applications Under WIFIA | |
| 82 FR 29246 - Extension of Deadline for Promulgating Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 29263 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan |
Issue
Census Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Community Living Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) Multipurpose Canister (MPC) Storage System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 3 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. Amendment No. 3 revises authorized contents to allow burnup credit for fuel types in the MPC-37 and revises CoC Condition 8, which has been previously incorporated in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032.
This direct final rule is effective September 11, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by July 28, 2017. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
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
Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8342; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0089 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-2017-0089 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on September 11, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by July 28, 2017, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
By letter dated December 18, 2015, Holtec submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1032. Holtec modified its request on April 22, 2016, and supplemented it on June 22, 2016, and August 22, 2016. The amendment revises authorized contents to allow burnup credit for fuel types in the MPC-37 and revises CoC Condition 8, which has been previously incorporated in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032.
As documented in the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (PSER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 3 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the March 28, 2011, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.
This direct final rule revises the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the PSER.
The amended Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032 under 10 CFR 72.212.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
This direct final rule amends the CoC for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 3 revises authorized contents to allow burnup credit for fuel types in the MPC-37 and revises CoC Condition 8, which has been previously incorporated in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 3 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System casks are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 3 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The NRC staff documented its safety findings in the PSER for this amendment.
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 3 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System casks in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 3 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, an interested licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the proposed action.
Approval of Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 3” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On March 28, 2011 (76 FR 17019), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.
By letter dated December 18, 2015, Holtec submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1032. Holtec modified its request on April 22, 2016, and supplemented it on June 22, 2016, and August 22, 2016, as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 3 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System casks under the changes described in Amendment No. 3 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSER and the environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks.” Amendment No. 3 revises authorized contents to allow burnup credit for fuel types in the MPC-37 and revises CoC Condition 8, which has been previously incorporated in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032.
Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System was initiated by Holtec and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 3 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 3. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 2 continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 3, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the NRC staff.
The OMB has not found this to be a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action updates the using agency information for restricted areas R-3007A, R-3007B, R-3007C, and R-3007D, Townsend, GA. This is an administrative change to reflect the current organization tasked with using agency responsibilities for the restricted areas. It does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, time of designation or activities conducted within the restricted areas.
Sean Hook, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the using agency for restricted areas R-3007A, R-3007B, R-3007C, and R-3007D, Townsend, GA, to reflect the current organization responsible for the restricted areas.
This rule amends title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by updating the using agency name for restricted areas R-3007A, R-3007B, R-3007C, and R-3007D, Townsend, GA, by removing the words “ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center, GA” and adding the words “USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.” The name change reflects the current organization assigned using agency responsibilities for the restricted areas. This is an administrative change that does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted areas; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this action only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of updating the using agency information for restricted areas R-3007A, R-3007B, R-3007C, and R-3007D, Townsend, GA qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing “Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center, GA,” and adding in its place “Using agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.”
By removing “Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center, GA,” and adding in its place “Using agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.”
By removing “Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center, GA,” and adding in its place “Using agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.”
By removing “Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center, GA,” and adding in its place “Using agency. USMC, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.”
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Final rule.
The Commission issues amendments to the Energy Labeling Rule to eliminate certain marking requirements for plumbing products and to exempt certain ceiling fans from labeling requirements. Additionally, the amendments update the Rule to include labeling requirements for electric instantaneous water heaters. The Commission also makes non-substantive, conforming changes to the testing provisions for LED covered lamps and minor corrections to other provisions.
This rule is effective on December 26, 2017, except for the amendments to § 305.13, which are effective on September 17, 2018, and the amendments to § 305.16, which are effective on July 28, 2017.
Relevant portions of the record of this proceeding, including this document, are available at
Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission issued the Energy Labeling Rule (“Rule”) in 1979,
The Rule requires manufacturers to attach yellow EnergyGuide labels to many of the covered products and prohibits retailers from removing these labels or rendering them illegible. In addition, it directs sellers, including retailers, to post label information on Web sites and in paper catalogs from which consumers can order products. EnergyGuide labels for most covered products contain three key disclosures: Estimated annual energy cost, a product's energy consumption or energy efficiency rating as determined by DOE test procedures, and a comparability range displaying the highest and lowest energy costs or efficiency ratings for all similar models. For cost calculations, the Rule specifies national average costs for applicable energy sources (
In a September 12, 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2016 NPRM), the Commission sought comment on several issues including portable air conditioner (portable AC or PAC) labeling, large-diameter and high-speed small-diameter (HSSD) ceiling fan labels, electric instantaneous water heater labeling, and plumbing disclosures changes. The Commission received 10 comments in response.
Delta T Corporation dba Big Ass Solutions (Delta T) (#00009); De Longhi Appliances (#00010); A.O. Smith Corporation (#00011); Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) (#00012); Rheem Manufacturing Company (#00013); Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“Joint Commenters”) (#00014); Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) #00015; Hunter Fan Company (#00008); Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI) #00003; and the People's Republic of China (#0016 and #0017).
Industry members, AHAM and DeLonghi, as well as China argued against combining label ranges for portable and room ACs because of significant differences in how consumers purchase and use these products and the consumer confusion such combined information may cause.
The Joint Commenters similarly recommended against combining ranges at this time. However, they also recommended initiating separate ranges to avoid delay and ensure consumers have access to energy labels pending DOE test harmonization. They explained that the test conditions impose different outdoor temperatures for the two product types. The inconsistency favors portable ACs, making them appear more efficient. Therefore, although portable AC labels generated under the test will not allow for a direct comparison to room AC labels, the labels will still accurately depict portable ACs as generally less efficient (and thus more costly to operate) than room ACs.
In contrast, AHAM and DeLonghi recommended the Commission wait and synchronize the labeling requirements with the compliance date for new DOE efficiency standards, which would be set five years after DOE issues such standards. AHAM explained that its members will devote considerable resources over the next few years to ensure product lines meet the new DOE standards.
Should the FTC require labels, Delta T recommended the label display integrated efficiency, maximum power consumption, and maximum cubic feet per minute of airflow, and cost comparisons limited to similar-size products. In addition, Hunter recommended disclosures advising consumers not to compare large-diameter models to small ones.
The final amendments include a non-substantive, conforming change to the Rule's testing provisions (section 305.5) to clarify that manufacturers must use DOE test procedures for LED covered lamps. In the past, the Rule stated that the Commission will accept tests conducted according to IEA LM79 as a reasonable basis for representations of light output for general service LED lamps. However, on July 1, 2016 (81 FR 43404), DOE issued final test procedures incorporating LM79 standard by reference. Because EPCA requires manufacturers to use DOE test procedures for labeling,
The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and reporting requirements that constitute information collection requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has approved the Rule's existing information collection requirements through November 30, 2019 (OMB Control No. 3084-0069). The amendments make changes in the Rule's labeling requirements that will increase the PRA burden as detailed below.
Burden estimates below are based on Census data, DOE figures and estimates, general knowledge of manufacturing practices, and trade association advice and figures. The FTC estimates that there are about 100 basic models (
Thus, estimated annual burden attributable to the amendments is 1,672 hours (3 hours for reporting + 167 for labeling + 1,200 for testing + 2 hours for recordkeeping + 300 disclosure hours for catalog sellers).
Staff derived labor costs by applying assumed hourly wages
Based on the above estimates and assumptions, the total annual labor cost for the various burden categories and sub-categories noted above is as follows:
Manufacturers are not likely to require any significant capital costs to comply with the amendments. Industry members, however, will incur the cost of printing package labels for each covered unit. The estimated label cost, based on $.03 per label, is $3,000 (100,000 × $.03).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with a Proposed Rule, and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) with the final Rule, unless the Commission certifies that the Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission does not anticipate that the final amendments will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission recognizes that some affected entities may qualify as small businesses under the relevant thresholds. The Commission does not expect, however, that the economic impact of implementing the amendments will be significant because the amendments involve routine labeling requirements commonly implemented by the affected entities and, as illustrated in the PRA analysis, the PRA burden of these requirements is not large. The Commission will provide businesses with ample time to implement the requirements. In addition, the Commission does not expect that the requirements specified in the final amendments will have a significant impact on affected entities.
Although the Commission certified under the RFA that the amendments would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an FRFA in order to explain the impact of the amendments on small entities as follows:
The Commission is issuing a new energy label for electric instantaneous water heaters to help consumers with their purchasing decisions. It is also amending the Rule's requirements to eliminate unnecessary requirements regarding plumbing disclosures.
The Commission did not receive any comments specifically related to the impact of the final amendments on small businesses. In addition, the
Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, appliance manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have fewer than 1,000 employees (for other household appliances the figure is 500 employees). Catalog sellers qualify as small businesses if their sales are less than $8.0 million annually. FTC staff estimates that there are approximately 100 catalog sellers subject to the proposed rule's requirements that qualify as small businesses.
The amendments would slightly increase reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with the Commission's labeling rules as discussed above. The amendments likely will increase compliance burdens by extending the labeling requirements to instantaneous electric water heaters. As previously explained in the PRA analysis, the Commission anticipates that the labeling will be implemented by electronic equipment installers.
The Commission sought comment and information on the need, if any, for alternative compliance methods that would reduce the economic impact of the Rule on such small entities. In response to comments, the Commission has given manufacturers the option of printing or affixing labels on electric instantaneous water heaters to provide flexibility in meeting that requirement. The Commission also removed outdated references on plumbing products that are unlikely to aid consumers or industry members and, as such, impose unnecessary burdens.
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission amends part 305 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6294.
(d)
(3)
(f) * * *
(9) * * *
(i) Labels for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers must contain a statement as illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L and specified as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate energy cost figure):
Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use.
Both cost ranges based on models of similar size capacity.
[Insert statement required by § 305.11(f)(9)(iii)].
Estimated energy cost based on a national average electricity cost of __ cents per kWh.
(iv) Labels for freezers must contain a statement as illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L and specified as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate energy cost figure):
Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use.
[Insert statement required by § 305.11(f)(10)(v)].
Estimated energy cost based on a national average electricity cost of __ cents per kWh.
(vii) For water heaters covered by appendices D1, D2, and D3, the statement will read as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate fuel type, and energy cost figures):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on models fueled by [natural gas, oil, propane, or electricity] with a [very small, low, medium, or high] first hour rating [fewer than 18 gallons, 18-50.9 gallons, 51-74.9 gallons, or greater than 75 gallons].
Estimated energy cost is based on a national average [electricity, natural gas, propane, or oil] cost of [__ cents per kWh or $__ per therm or gallon].
Estimated yearly energy use: __ [kWh or therms].
(viii) For instantaneous water heaters (appendices D4 and D5), the statement will read as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate model type, and the energy cost figures):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on [electric models or models fueled by natural gas] with a [very small, low, medium, or high] gallons per minute rating [0 to 1.6, 1.7 to 2.7, 2.8 to 4.0, or greater than 4.0].
Estimated energy cost is based on a national average [electricity, natural gas, or propane] cost of [ __ cents per kWh or $__ per therm or gallon].
Estimated yearly energy use: __ [kWh or therms].
(ix) For dishwashers covered by appendices C1 and C2, the statement will read as follows (fill in the brackets with the appropriate capacity and the energy cost figures):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on [compact/standard] capacity models.
Estimated energy cost is based on four washloads a week, and a national average electricity cost of [__] cents per kWh and natural gas cost of $[__] per therm.
For more information, visit
(x) For clothes washers covered by appendices F1 and F2, the statement will read as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate capacity and energy cost figures):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on [compact/standard] capacity models.
Estimated operating cost is based on six wash loads a week and a national
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xii) For fans from 19 or more inches and less than or equal to 84 inches in diameter, the label shall display a cost range of $3 to $34 along with the statement underneath the range “Cost Range of Similar Models (19″-84″).
(a) * * *
(3) The package for each showerhead and faucet shall disclose the manufacturer's name and the model number.
(4) The package or any label attached to the package for each showerhead or faucet shall contain at least the following: The flow rate expressed in gallons per minute (gpm) or gallons per cycle (gpc), and the flow rate value shall be the actual flow rate or the maximum flow rate specified by the standards established in subsection (j) of section 325 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6295(j). Each flow rate disclosure shall also be given in liters per minute (L/min) or liters per cycle (L/cycle).
(b) * * *
(3) The package, and any labeling attached to the package, for each water closet and urinal shall disclose the flow rate, expressed in gallons per flush (gpf), and the water use value shall be the actual water use or the maximum water use specified by the standards established in subsection (k) of section 325 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6295(k). Each flow rate disclosure shall also be given in liters per flush (Lpf).
(4) With respect to any gravity tank-type white 2-piece toilet offered for sale or sold before January 1, 1997, which has a water use greater than 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf), any printed matter distributed or displayed in connection with such product (including packaging and point-of-sale material, catalog material, and print advertising) shall include, in a conspicuous manner, the words “For Commercial Use Only.”
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) Televisions. The estimated annual operating cost determined in accordance with § 305.5 and a disclosure stating “Your energy cost depends on your utility rates and use. The estimated cost is based on 12 cents per kWh and 5 hours of use per day. For more information, visit
By direction of the Commission.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Final rule; CRA Revocation.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has passed, and the President has signed resolutions of disapproval of Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees and Savings Arrangements Established by Qualified State Political Subdivisions for Non-Governmental Employees, as codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) published these final rules in 2016, effective October 31, 2016 and January 19, 2017, respectively. Because these resolutions invalidate these final rules, EBSA is hereby removing these final rules from the Code of Federal Regulations.
This action is effective June 28, 2017.
Jeffrey J. Turner, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, (202) 693-8500. This is not a toll-free number.
On August 30, 2016, the Department issued a final rule entitled Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees (81 FR 59464, Aug. 30, 2016). The final rule, which became effective on October 31, 2016, amended an existing rule defining “employee pension benefit plans” for purposes of ERISA (29 CFR part 2510, § 2510.3-2) in order to add a safe harbor for certain state-established savings arrangements. Subsequently, on December 20, 2016, the Department issued another final rule entitled Savings Arrangements Established by Qualified State Political Subdivisions for Non-Governmental Employees (81 FR 92639, Dec. 20, 2016), which amended the August 30, 2016, final rule to expand the safe harbor to savings
On February 15, 2017, the United States House of Representatives, under authority of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Accounting, Coverage, Employee benefit plans, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Pensions, Reporting.
For the reasons stated above and under the authority of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
29 U.S.C. 1002(2), 1002(21), 1002(37), 1002(38), 1002(40), 1031, and 1135; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2011, 77 FR 1088 (Jan. 9, 2012); Secs. 2510.3-21, 2510.3-101 and 2510.3-102 also issued under sec. 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. at 237 (2012), E.O. 12108, 44 FR 1065 (Jan. 3, 1979) and 29 U.S.C. 1135 note. Sec. 2510.3-38 is also issued under sec. 1, Pub. L. 105-72, 111 Stat. 1457 (1997).
(a)
In Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800 to end, revised as of July 1, 2016, on page 474, revise § 1908.04 to read as follows:
The Agency welcomes suggestions, comments, or complaints with regard to its administration of the mandatory declassification review program established under Executive Order 13526. Members of the public shall address such communications to the CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator. The Agency will respond as determined feasible and appropriate under the circumstances.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the City of Cleveland 4th of July, on Lake Erie and the Cleveland Harbor from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on Tuesday, July 4th, 2017. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone identifies the safety zone for this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(25) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Coast Guard; telephone 216-937-0124, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following event:
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Ontario during the Independence Day Celebration fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.
This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 2, 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 LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks show. For the same reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this temporary 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. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 2, 2017 from 9:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY contained within a 350-foot radius of position 43°27′56.82″ N. and 076°30′59.02″ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order 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.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
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.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement for only forty-five minutes late in the evening. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast 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 compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping 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) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Fairport, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Cleveland Construction Super Boat Grand Prix on July 22nd and 23rd, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with a high speed boat race. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.
This rule is effective from noon on July 22, 2017, through 5 p.m. on July 23, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying this rulemakingto wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a high speed boat race. For these same reasons, 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. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with high speed boat races would be a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the race course. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.
This rule establishes a safety zone from noon on July 22, 2017 through 5 p.m. on July 23, 2017. The safety zone will be enforced from noon through 5 p.m. on July 22, 2017 and from 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. on July 23, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of Lake Erie, off of Headlands Beach State Park, Fairport, OH inside an area starting on shore at position 41°44′33″ N., 081°19′14″ W. extending NW. in a straight line to position 41°45′00″ N., 081°19′35″ W., then NE. in a straight line to position 41°45′59″ N., 081°17′30″ W., and SE. back to the shore at position 41°45′43″ N., 081°17′08″ W. (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
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
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 5-7 hours each day that will prohibit entry within the high speed boat race course. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
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) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
With this rule EPA establishes fees related to the provision of federal credit assistance under Subtitle C of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA), which is referred to as the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA authorizes EPA to provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water infrastructure projects and to charge fees to recover all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including financial, engineering, and legal services, in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments.
Jordan Dorfman, Water Infrastructure Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4201C, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)564-0614; email address:
This action only applies to entities seeking credit assistance under the WIFIA program for the development and construction of a water infrastructure project. EPA has published an interim final rule to implement this new credit assistance program. A list of eligible entities and eligible projects can be found in the Interim Final Rule entitled, “Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects.” This interim final rule is available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0569, at
EPA is establishing fees associated with the provision of federal credit assistance under the WIFIA program. WIFIA authorizes EPA to provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water infrastructure projects. EPA has published an Interim Final Rule entitled, “Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects” to establish procedures for the implementation of the WIFIA Program. As specified under 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3), Congress in WIFIA authorizes EPA to charge fees to recover all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including financial, engineering, and legal services, in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments. EPA is establishing an application fee, credit processing fee, servicing fee, optional supplemental fee, and fee for extraordinary expenses to cover these costs to the extent not covered by congressional appropriations.
This final rule is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7), 3909(b), 3909(c)(3), and 3911.
In the Interim Final Rule entitled, “Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects,” EPA established an application process for WIFIA credit assistance that is divided into two steps. The first step requires the submission of a letter of interest. No fees are established for the letter of interest step. Projects selected to continue in the application process will then be invited to submit an application at which time the application fee must be paid. For this second step, EPA will only select those projects that it expects might reasonably proceed to closing. For more information on this process, please refer to the WIFIA Implementation Rule at 40 CFR part 35 subpart Q or in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0569, at
As described in greater detail below, the types of fees EPA is establishing are consistent with other Federal Credit programs. In particular, the WIFIA program was designed by Congress to resemble the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, commonly known as TIFIA. Accordingly, to the extent practicable, the WIFIA program has been crafted by EPA to be implemented in a similar manner as the Department of Transportation implements the TIFIA program. The rationale for establishing these fees is to cover EPA's costs of administering the program to the extent these costs are not covered by congressional appropriations. To effectively administer the program, EPA will incur both internal administrative costs (staffing, program support contracts, and other costs) as well as the costs of retaining expert firms, including legal, engineering, and financial services, in the field of municipal and project finance, to assist in the underwriting of the Federal credit instrument.
The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-332, in section 5008(c), amended WIFIA to allow, at the request of an applicant, the financing of fees as part of the loan. While not reflected in this rule, the ability to finance fees as part of a WIFIA loan is an option available to applicants. EPA will publish additional information or guidance, as necessary, on its Web site at:
EPA will require a non-refundable application fee for each project that is invited to submit an application (second step following submission of letter of interest) for credit assistance under WIFIA. The application fee will be due upon submission of the application. For fiscal year 2017, the application fee is $25,000 for applications for projects serving small communities (population of not more than 25,000 people). For all other project applications, the application fee is $100,000. These application fees represent an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the minimum threshold project cost ($5 million for small communities and $20 million for larger communities, 33 U.S.C. 3907(a)(2)), which EPA considers to be sufficient to begin the financial, engineering, and legal analysis of the project while providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed to closing, and therefore costs incurred by EPA may be recovered. EPA will undertake significant costs to evaluate applications and hire expert firms for underwriting and considers an application fee essential for applicants
For fiscal years 2018 and beyond, EPA may need to adjust the amount of the application fee based on early program implementation experience. A change in the application fee will not change the total fees charged, only the initial fee which is credited to the final fee at closing, or in the event that the project does not proceed to closing, at withdrawal or denial of the application.
EPA will require a credit processing fee at the time of closing, or in the event that the project does not proceed to closing,
•
•
•
EPA may waive a portion of the fee charged to an applicant in the event that Congress appropriates resources adequate to pay for EPA's cost of administering the WIFIA program as well as additional funding to pay for loan processing. WIFIA currently provides that EPA may retain $2.2 million annually from funds appropriated to the program to pay for the administration of the program, including internal administrative costs of staffing, program support contracts (separate from the expert services described previously), and other internal administrative needs.
To the extent Congress appropriates administrative funds in excess of those needed for EPA's internal administrative costs, EPA may use the remaining available administrative allowance (less any amount needed for future years' administration) to reduce fees. EPA will allocate additional administrative funds by reducing fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median household income. If additional administrative funds remain, EPA will reduce fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects serving a population of not more than 25,000. If additional administrative funds still remain, EPA will reduce fees by an equal amount for each remaining loan.
EPA will charge an annual servicing fee during repayment of the loan. The fee will be dependent on the costs of servicing the credit instrument (
EPA may charge a fee, with agreement of the applicant, to reduce the budget authority required to fund the credit instrument. Although EPA considers it unlikely that a scenario will arise under which it would assess such a fee, the Agency sees benefit in establishing the flexibility to allow an applicant to “buy down” the budget authority required for the credit instrument. This could allow an applicant to proceed to closing in the event that sufficient budget authority would not otherwise be available. Such a fee will only be charged upon agreement by an applicant.
EPA may charge a fee to cover extraordinary expenses in the event that a borrower experiences difficulty relating to technical, financial, or legal matters or other events (
The Agency received comments from eight commenters on the proposed rule. The comments, including the Agency's responses, are included in the docket for this rulemaking. Responses to the most significant comments are included in this section. This section addresses comments regarding the rationale used to establish the application fee amount and the method by which EPA will reduce fees in the event additional sufficient resources are available for such a purpose.
With respect to the establishment of the application fee, and the lower fee level set for projects serving small communities of under 25,000, one commenter suggested that EPA establish more than two levels for the application fee. The commenter stated that as proposed, the application fee for a community of 50,000 would be the same as for a large metropolitan area. The commenter also suggested an alternative to setting fee levels by population by basing the fee levels on project size.
EPA appreciates the commenters suggestions but will not adopt the suggestions. The application fee was established at $100,000 in order to allow the Agency to begin the financial and legal analysis of the project while providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed to closing, and therefore costs incurred by the Agency may be recovered. The reduced fee was established based on the statutory allowance for project serving communities of under 25,000 to apply for loans where total eligible costs are at
Another commenter stated that in order to not discourage applications for projects serving low-income communities, WIFIA application fees should be waivable or greatly reduced for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is at least 80 percent or less of the state median household income. The commenter proposes that economically stressed communities regardless of size be eligible for application fee waivers or substantial application fee reduction.
EPA appreciates the commenters proposal, but will not adopt the proposal. As previously stated, the application fee was established at $100,000 in order to allow the Agency to begin the financial and legal analysis of the project while providing assurance that the applicant intends to proceed to closing, and therefore costs incurred by the Agency may be recovered. A reduction or waiver of the application fee would remove the incentive for communities to proceed to closing by eliminating the risk of losing the application fee. EPA expects fewer small community applicants entitled to the reduced fee than applicants that can show economic stress. If a significant number of applicants receive an application fee waiver or reduction, EPA will be unable to begin the financial and legal analysis required for each project applicant due to limited resources. As previously stated, if sufficient resources exist for EPA to reduce fees, such resources will be used to reduce the fees of applicants that serve a population with a median household income that is at least 80 percent or less of the state median household income.
In paragraph (f) of the final rule language, EPA has the authority to reduce the credit processing fee established under paragraph (c), to the extent that Congress appropriates funds in any given year beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs. In the proposed rule, EPA proposed three alternative methods by which the Agency could allocate additional administrative funds to reduce fees:
• By reducing fees by an equal amount per loan in the relevant year;
• By reducing fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects serving a population of not more than 25,000; or
• By reducing fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median household income.
Alternatively, EPA could allocate such fee reductions through a combination of these three methods. EPA requested comment on each of these potential options or other potential approaches. EPA received three comments related to this request.
The first commenter suggested that a combination of the three methods should be used and that EPA should first reduce or eliminate credit processing fees charged to applicants for projects that primarily serve a population with a median household income of 80 percent or less of the state median household income. The commenter's rationale is that this approach will target fee relief toward communities that are likely facing some of the most significant water affordability challenges, and whose residents could most benefit from both low-cost financing and fee relief. The commenter suggested that any remaining funding available after eliminating credit processing fees in these low-income communities should be used to reduce the credit processing fees for all of that year's remaining applicants by a pro-rata percentage of the total credit processing fees paid by the applicant. Any forgiveness of credit processing fees should be calculated on the balance of these fees after the credit for payment of an application fee has been applied.
The second commenter suggested that EPA should first reduce the credit processing fee for communities for whom the fees would impose the greatest financial hardship. The commenter stated that EPA should reduce applicant fees by an equal amount per loan for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median household income. Once fees have been reduced for hardship communities, any remaining funds should be used to reduce credit processing fees by an equal amount per loan for projects serving communities with populations of under 25,000.
The third commenter suggested that EPA reduce fees on a pro-rata share based on loan size.
EPA appreciates the comments received on this important issue and agrees with the first and second commenters that a combination of methods should be used to reduce the credit processing fees of applicants to the extent that Congress appropriates funds in any given year beyond those sufficient to cover internal administrative costs. The Agency agrees that the most important use of these additional funds is to reduce the impact of the fees on the neediest applicants. In order to reduce the impact of fees on those applicants most in need, EPA will reduce the credit processing fee, to the extent possible, by an equal amount per loan, on a dollar basis, for those projects that serve a population with a median household income that is 80 percent or less of the state median household income. If funds remain, EPA will then reduce fees by an equal amount per loan, on a dollar basis, for those projects serving a population of not more than 25,000. If funds still remain, EPA will reduce fees by an equal amount per loan, on a dollar basis, for all remaining loans. EPA cannot reduce fees as a percentage of the credit processing fee paid by an applicant because the total credit processing fee for each loan will not be known until loan closing.
EPA appreciates the third commenter's suggestion, but will not adopt the suggestion. The credit processing fee is not determined by loan size. The estimated range of the credit processing fee is based on the complexity of the underlying transaction and the difficulty or length of time of negotiations. Therefore, between two applicants, one with a greater loan size may have a smaller fee. Providing greater relief to applicants charged a smaller fee, irrespective of need, does not align with the Agency's desire to provide relief to the neediest applicants.
This action is not a significant regulatory action.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this rule merely establishes fees associated with a previously promulgated rule.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. Participation in the WIFIA loan program is voluntary. While many projects serving small communities are potentially eligible for WIFIA loans, we anticipate only one to two small community applications per year as small communities have access to below market rate loans and other subsidies through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and other funding sources. A small community will only apply and undertake a WIFIA loan in cases where the WIFIA loan provides positive economic benefits relative to other potential funding sources, based upon consideration of relevant economic factors, including loan rate, loan terms, fees and other transaction costs. I have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. While a tribal government, or a consortium of tribal governments may apply for WIFIA credit assistance, this action does not 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.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because environmental health or safety risks are not addressed by this action.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This rulemaking simply imposes fees required to apply for credit assistance; therefore, by itself, this rulemaking will not have any effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.
Each project obtaining assistance under this program is required to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Water finance.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 35 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Extension of deadline for promulgating designations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that it is using its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to extend by 1 year the deadline for promulgating initial area designations for the ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that were promulgated in October 2015. The new deadline is October 1, 2018.
The deadline for the EPA to promulgate initial designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is October 1, 2018.
For questions regarding this action, contact Denise Scott, Air Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C539-04, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4208; email address:
Entities potentially affected by this action include state, local and tribal governments that would participate in the initial area designation process for the 2015 ozone standards.
The EPA has established a docket for designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0223. All documents in the docket are listed in the
An electronic copy of this notice is also available at
On October 1, 2015, the EPA signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the 8-hour primary and secondary ozone NAAQS (80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015). The primary standard was lowered from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to a level of 0.070 ppm. The EPA also revised the secondary standard by making it identical in all respects to the revised primary standard. (The previous ozone NAAQS were set in 2008 and remain effective.)
After the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 109, the CAA directs the EPA and the states to begin taking steps to ensure that those NAAQS are met. The first step is to identify areas of the country that do not meet the new or revised NAAQS. This step is known as the initial area designations. Section 107(d)(1)(A) of the CAA provides that, “By such date as the Administrator may reasonably require, but not later than 1 year after promulgation of a new or revised national ambient air quality standard for any pollutant under section [109], the Governor of each State shall * * * submit to the Administrator a list of all areas (or portions thereof) in the State” that designates those areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. The CAA defines an area as nonattainment if it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation in a nearby area. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i).
The CAA further provides, “Upon promulgation or revision of a national ambient air quality standard, the Administrator shall promulgate the designations of all areas (or portions thereof) * * * as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than 2 years from the date of promulgation of the new or revised national ambient air quality standard. Such period may be extended for up to one year in the event the Administrator has insufficient information to promulgate the
After the states submit their recommendations, but no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify a state of any intended modifications to the state's recommended designation. The state then has an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropriate. Whether or not a state provides a recommendation, the EPA must promulgate the designation that the agency deems appropriate within 2 years of promulgation of the NAAQS (or within 3 years if the EPA extends the deadline).
For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the deadline for states to submit designation recommendations to the EPA for their areas was October 1, 2016. The EPA has been evaluating these recommendations and conducting additional analyses to determine whether it is necessary to modify any of the state recommendations.
In this action, the EPA is announcing that it is using its authority under section 107(d)(1)(B)(i) of the CAA to extend by 1 year the deadline for promulgating initial area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The new deadline is October 1, 2018. For the reasons explained in this notice, the EPA Administrator has determined that there is insufficient information to complete the designations by October 1, 2017.
Following the recent change in administrations, the agency is currently evaluating a host of complex issues regarding the 2015 ozone NAAQS and its implementation, such as understanding the role of background ozone levels and appropriately accounting for international transport. The Administrator has determined that he cannot assess whether he has the necessary information to finalize designations until additional analyses from this evaluation are available. In addition, pursuant to language in the recently-enacted Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus bill, the Administrator is establishing an Ozone Cooperative Compliance Task Force to develop additional flexibilities for states to comply with the ozone standard. It is possible the outcome of that effort could identify flexibilities that could impact the designations process. In light of the analyses currently underway at the agency, the Administrator has determined he needs additional time to consider completely all designation recommendations provided by state governors pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(1)(A), including full consideration of exceptional events impacting designations, and determine whether they provide sufficient information to finalize designations. We also note that new agency officials are currently reviewing the 2015 ozone NAAQS rule. The Administrator has determined that in light of the uncertainty of the outcome of that review, there is insufficient information to promulgate designations by October 1, 2017.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Department of Justice.
Request for public comment.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13777, the Department of Justice's Regulatory Reform Task Force is publishing this Notice to solicit public suggestions for subjects meriting the Task Force's attention.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2017. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments submitted prior to Midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. OLP 164” on all electronic and written correspondence. The Department encourages all comments be submitted electronically through
Robert Hinchman, (202) 514-8059. This is not a toll-free number.
Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address,
In February 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which sets forth principles and requirements for each agency to evaluate and implement measures to lower regulatory burdens on the American people. Specifically, the Executive Order directs each agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force to identify regulatory actions that do the following:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001, 44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or OMB Information Quality Guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
Section 3(e) of this Order directs each agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force to seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by existing Federal regulations (as defined in Section 4 of Executive Order 13771) including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations. Pursuant to Executive Order 13777 and as one part of a broader consultation effort, the Department of Justice's Regulatory Reform Task Force is publishing this Notice to solicit public suggestions for subjects meriting the Task Force's attention.
The Task Force seeks public comment for two purposes. First, the Task Force seeks comments from the public on the various kinds of actions taken by the Department's components that the public perceives to be regulatory in nature even if they are issued in a form other than rules promulgated upon notice and comment. For purposes of this inquiry, the public may perceive an action to be regulatory in nature if it imposes binding requirements on any person or entity outside the federal government or if it states criteria that a Department component will use to assess compliance with such a binding requirement.
Second, the Task Force seeks suggestions from the public for specific regulatory actions previously taken by the Department that should be repealed, replaced, or modified, consistent with applicable law. In particular, the Task Force welcomes specific comments that identify regulatory actions that meet the criteria as proscribed in Executive Order 13777.
The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force will consider public comments as it conducts its own evaluation of the Department's regulations in order to identify candidate regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification.
The Department notes that this Request for Comment is issued solely for information and planning purposes. The Department will give careful consideration to the comments, and may use them as appropriate during its review, but we do not anticipate providing a point-by-point response to each comment submitted. While responses to this Request for Comments do not bind the Department to any further actions related to the response, all submissions will be made publicly available on
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) Multipurpose Canister (MPC) Storage System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 3 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. Amendment No. 3 revises authorized contents to allow burnup credit for fuel types in the MPC-37 and revises CoC Condition 8, which has been previously incorporated in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032.
Submit comments by July 28, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff 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
Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8342; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0089 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-2017-0089 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System design. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications.
For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed Rule document 2016-13305 appearing on pages 28788 through 28790 in the issue of Monday, June 26, 2017 was withdrawn from public inspection and published in error. It should be removed.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission proposes amending the Textile Rules (“Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act”) to delete the requirement that an owner of a registered word trademark furnish the FTC with a copy of the mark's registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) before using the mark on labels, and to no longer restrict the use of such trademarks to only those also employed as house marks. Eliminating these requirements is expected to reduce compliance costs while increasing firms' flexibility.
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, (202) 326-2098, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission recently announced a new initiative to eliminate or change outdated, unnecessary regulations and processes.
Specifically, the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Act”)
The Commission promulgated § 303.19 in 1959 at the time it issued the Textile Rules, and the provision has not changed since.
Now, Commission staff and consumers can identify trademark owners by searching online or on the USPTO's online database. Accordingly, the regulation is no longer necessary. The Commission, therefore, proposes to amend § 303.19(a) to delete this requirement. In addition to potentially reducing compliance costs for textile marketers, deleting this requirement would eliminate the Commission's need to process and maintain trademark registration records, freeing those resources for more productive uses.
Additionally, there appears to be no reason to restrict the use of word trademarks to only those also employed as house marks.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 31, 2017. Write “Textile Rules, 16 CFR part 303, Project No. P948404” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Textile Rules, 16 CFR part 303, Project No. P948404” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Web site—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Web site, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the Commission Web site to read this NPRM and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 31, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
The Commission invites members of the public to comment on the costs and benefits to industry members and consumers, as well as any issues or concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of the proposed amendment to the Textile Rules. The Commission requests that comments provide factual data upon which they are based.
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
The Commission believes that the proposed amendment would not have a significant economic impact upon small entities, although it may affect a substantial number of small businesses. In the Commission's view, the proposed amendment should not increase the costs of small entities that manufacture or import textile fiber products. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission certifies that amending the Rules as proposed will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the proposed amendment would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to inquire into the impact of the proposed amendment on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis:
The Commission proposes amending the Rules to delete one requirement and provide greater flexibility in complying with the Rules' disclosure requirements.
The Textile Act authorizes the Commission to implement its requirements through the issuance of rules. The proposed amendment would delete the requirement that word trademark owners disclosing their trademarks in lieu of their business names on labels furnish a copy of their trademark registrations to the Commission, and provide covered entities with additional labeling options (
The Rules apply to various segments of the textile fiber product industry, including manufacturers and wholesalers of textile apparel products. Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration, textile apparel manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have 500 or fewer employees. Clothing wholesalers qualify as small businesses if they have 100 or fewer employees. The Commission's staff has estimated that approximately 22,642 textile fiber product manufacturers and importers are covered by the Rules' disclosure requirements.
As explained earlier in this document, the proposed amendment would delete a filing requirement and a limitation on the use of word trademarks on textile labels, thus providing greater flexibility to companies covered by the Rules. The small entities potentially covered by the proposed amendment will include all such entities subject to the Rules.
The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendment.
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives because the proposed amendment would not impose any new requirements or compliance costs.
The Rules contain various “collection of information” (
Advertising, Labeling, Recordkeeping, Textile fiber products.
Accordingly, the FTC proposes to amend 16 CFR part 303 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 70
(a) The name required by the Act to be used on labels shall be the name under which the person is doing business. Where a person has a word trademark, registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, such word trademark may be used on labels in lieu of the name otherwise required. No trademark, trade names, or other names except those provided for above shall be used for required identification purposes.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Rule review; request for public comments.
The Commission is requesting public comments on its rule implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (the “CAN-SPAM Rule” or “Rule”). The Commission is soliciting comments about the efficiency, costs, benefits, and regulatory impact of the Rule as part of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides. All interested persons are hereby given notice of the opportunity to submit written data, reviews, and arguments concerning the Rule.
Written comments concerning the CAN-SPAM Rule must be received no later than August 31, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Christopher E. Brown, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2825.
Enacted in 2003, and effective since January 1, 2004, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM Act” or “Act”),
Pursuant to the Act's directive, the Commission promulgated a rule styled the Label for Email Messages Containing Sexually Oriented Material (“Adult Labeling Rule”) in 2004.
In 2005, the Commission issued CAN-SPAM Rule provisions that define the relevant criteria to determine the “primary purpose” of an email message.
The Rule also clarifies that the definitions of certain terms taken from the Act and appearing in the Rule are prescribed by particular referenced portions of the Act. These terms include: “affirmative consent,” “commercial electronic mail message,” “electronic mail address,” “initiate,” “Internet,” “procure,” “protected computer,” “recipient,” “routine conveyance,” “sender,” “sexually oriented material,” and “transactional or relationship message.”
Pursuant to its discretionary authority to issue regulations to implement the provisions of the Act, the Commission promulgated additional CAN-SPAM Rule provisions in 2008. These provisions: (1) Add a definition of the term “person;” (2) modify the term “sender” in those instances where a single email message contains advertisements for the products, services, or Web sites of multiple entities; (3) clarify that a sender may comply with section 7704(a)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act by including in a commercial email message a post office box or private mailbox established pursuant to United States Postal Service regulations; and (4) clarify that to submit a valid opt-out request, a recipient cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information other than his or her email address and opt-out preferences, or take any steps other than sending a reply email message or visiting a single page on an Internet Web site.
The Commission periodically reviews all of its rules and guides. These reviews seek information about the costs and benefits of the agency's rules and guides, and their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying those rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. Therefore, the Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the economic impact and benefits of the Rule; possible conflict between the Rule and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the Rule from any technological, economic, or other industry changes since promulgation of the Rule.
The Commission requests written comment on any or all of the following questions. The General Questions reflect those traditionally raised at such a review. The Specific Questions are based on the CAN-SPAM Act's express grant of specific or supplementary rulemaking authority.
1. Is there a continuing need for the Rule? Why or why not?
2. What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?
3. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to consumers?
(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(c) How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers?
4. What impact has the Rule had on the flow of truthful information to consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to consumers?
5. What significant costs, if any, has the Rule imposed on consumers? What evidence supports the asserted costs?
6. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce any costs imposed on consumers?
(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Rule?
7. What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?
8. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to businesses, including small businesses?
(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(c) How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers?
9. What significant costs, if any, including costs of compliance, has the Rule imposed on businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted costs?
10. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the costs imposed on businesses, including small businesses?
(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Rule?
11. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry compliance with the Rule?
12. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions? What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
13. Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how?
(a) What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?
(b) With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
1. Should the Commission modify the Rule to expand or contract the categories of messages that are treated as transactional or relationship messages?
(a) Why or why not?
(b) What evidence supports such a modification?
(c) How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(d) How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?
2. As discussed above, the Rule tracks the CAN-SPAM Act in prohibiting the sending of commercial email to a recipient more than ten business days after the recipient opts out. Should the Commission modify the Rule to reduce the time-period for processing opt-out requests to less than ten business days?
(a) Why or why not?
(b) What evidence supports such a modification?
(c) How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(d) How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?
3. Should the Commission modify the Rule to specify additional activities or practices that constitute aggravated violations?
(a) Why or why not?
(b) What evidence supports such a modification?
(c) How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?
(d) How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 31, 2017. Write “CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR part 316, Project No. R711010,” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at:
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR part 316, Project No. R711010” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC Web site to read this document and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 31, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for public comment.
As part of its systematic review of all current FTC rules and guides, the Commission requests public comment on the overall costs, benefits, necessity, and regulatory and economic impact of the FTC's Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets (“Rule” or “Picture Tube Rule”).
Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
John Andrew Singer, (202) 326-3234, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission promulgated the Picture Tube Rule in 1966,
The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. The Commission last reviewed the Rule in 2006, retaining it unchanged.
To aid commenters in submitting their comments, the Commission provides the following general regulatory review questions and specific questions related to the Picture Tube Rule. The Commission seeks comments on these and any other issues related to the Rule's current requirements. In their replies to each of these questions, commenters should provide any available evidence and data, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer complaints, that support the positions asserted in their comments.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 31, 2017. Write “16 CFR part 410—Picture Tube Rule Review, File No. P174200” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “16 CFR part 410—Picture Tube Rule Review, File No. P174200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c).
Visit the FTC Web site to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 31, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Intent to request public comments.
As part of its ongoing, systematic review of all Federal Trade Commission rules and guides, the Commission announces a modified ten-year regulatory review schedule. No Commission determination on the need for, or the substance of, the rules and guides listed below should be inferred from this notice.
Effective on June 28, 2017.
Further details about particular rules or guides may be obtained from the contact person listed below for the rule or guide.
To ensure that its rules and industry guides remain relevant and are not unduly burdensome, the Commission reviews them on a ten-year schedule. Each year the Commission publishes its review schedule, with adjustments made in response to public input, changes in the marketplace, and resource demands.
When the Commission reviews a rule or guide, it publishes a notice in the
The Commission posts information about its review schedule on its Web site
For 2017, the Commission intends to initiate reviews of, and solicit public comments on, the following rules:
(1)
(2)
The Commission is currently reviewing 10 of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction. During 2016, it completed reviews of 2 rules. The Commission is postponing review of the following matters previously scheduled for review in 2017 until 2022: Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 CFR part 233; Guides Against Bait Advertising, 16 CFR part 238; and Guide Concerning Use of the Word “Free” and Similar Representations, 16 CFR part 251. A copy of the Commission's modified regulatory review schedule for 2017 through 2027 is appended. The Commission, in its discretion, may modify or reorder the schedule in the future to incorporate new rules, or to respond to external factors (such as changes in the law) or other considerations.
15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.
Proposed rule; delay of compliance date.
On May 12, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” with an effective date of January 1, 2017 for the final rule's electronic reporting requirements. The final rule sets an initial deadline of July 1, 2017, as the date by which certain employers are required to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA electronically. This action proposes to extend the initial submission deadline for 2016 Form 300A data to December 1, 2017, to provide the new administration an opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior to their implementation and allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, which will not be available until August 1. The proposed five-month delay would be effective on the date of publication of a final rule in the
Written comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by July 13, 2017.
Electronic copies of this
On May 12, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” with an effective date of January 1, 2017, for the final rule's electronic reporting requirements (81 FR 29624). Under these requirements, certain employers who were required to complete Form 300A in 2016 must submit the information on the form to OSHA electronically by July 1, 2017.
The Department proposes to delay the initial deadline for electronic submission of 2016 300A data from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017. The data collection system was originally intended to launch in February 2017. This would have given employers four months to submit their data in time for the due date of July 1. However, the launch was postponed. OSHA now expects to launch the data collection system by August 1, and the proposed due date of December 1 will allow OSHA to provide employers the same four-month window to electronically submit their 2016 Form 300A data. This delay will also to provide the new administration the opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior to their implementation and allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, which will not be available until August 1. OSHA seeks comment by July 13, 2017 on its proposal to extend the submission deadline by five months to December 1, 2017. OSHA also intends to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other
OSHA is proposing to delay the implementation of the electronic reporting requirements of the Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses rule by five months. By July 1, 2017, all establishments were to electronically report their summary data (Form 300A). The proposed new date for reporting is December 1, 2017. The cost savings for this delay are $59,310, or $6,953 per year annualized at three percent over the same 10-year period OSHA used in the initial rulemaking. At a 7 percent discount rate, the cost savings of the proposed delay are $134,689, or $19,177 per year annualized over 10 years.
These cost savings are calculated as follows. First, OSHA subtracted costs not applicable to the proposed delay from the original private-sector cost of the final rule. The subtracted costs include the costs of familiarization and checking by unregulated establishments (both of which would have taken place after the rule was published in May 2016), the costs of the non-discrimination provision (which became enforceable in 2016), and the costs of submission of case data (the OSHA Log data) (which is not required until 2018). This yields a private-sector cost of $4,845,365 per year, for the parts of the original rule relevant to the proposed delay of the first year's submission date from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017.
This cost represents the cost of electronically submitting the required 2016 information from the OSHA Form 300A in 2017. The affected employers have already gathered and recorded this information, as required by a different section of Part 1904.
This proposed delay will only affect costs for this year (2017); this proposal does not affect the deadlines for electronic submission in subsequent years. Thus, the only cost savings associated with this proposal are for delaying the deadline for the electronic submission of previously-recorded data by five months, from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017.
The cost savings of the delay are estimated based on the interest that can now be earned on the funds involved while the report for the first year is delayed.
The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost in the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for this rule. 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 overhead, and there are a range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government—for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,
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 annualized cost savings by approximately $1,822 per year using a 3 percent discount rate and by $3,260 a year using a 7 percent discount rate. (Note that all costs of this proposed rule are labor costs.)
As noted below, OSHA has stated that the data submission requirements of the original final rule would lead employers to increase workplace safety and health; although the costs of the safety- and health-improving actions have not been quantified, the savings associated with a delay of such costs would be analogous to those calculated for quantified costs.
Table 1 summarizes the annualized and one-time cost savings.
OSHA did not quantify the benefits of the final rule. In the economic analysis of the final rule, OSHA stated that the rule would improve OSHA's ability to identify, target, and remove safety and health hazards, thereby preventing workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths. In addition, OSHA stated that the data submission requirements of the final rule would improve the quality of the information submitted and lead employers to increase workplace safety and health. OSHA also projected benefits associated with making the data publicly available. OSHA does not believe this relatively brief delay in initial submissions would have any effect on these benefits; however, because of the lack of quantification, there is some uncertainty as to what the impact will be. Other aspects of the final rule that OSHA determined would produce benefits, such as the non-discrimination provision and the collection of case characteristic data (OSHA Forms 300, 301) from establishments with 250 or more
This delay of five months is both economically and technologically feasible. The delay meets both criteria of feasibility because the original rule was economically and technologically feasible without a five-month delay.
OSHA has considered whether this proposed change will have a significant economic impact on small firms. As a result of these considerations, in accordance with § 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, OSHA did not prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or conduct a SBREFA Panel.
Consistent with EO 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has estimated the annualized cost savings over 10 years for this proposed rule to range from $6,953 to $19,177, depending on the discount rate. Therefore, this proposed rule, if finalized, is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not propose changes to the information collections already approved by OMB under control number 1218-0176.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 6 was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to establish management measures and 2017 harvest limits for the blueline tilefish fishery north of the Virginia/North Carolina border. These changes are intended to propose permanent management measures for this fishery, consistent with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0025, by either of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of Amendment 6, and of the draft Environmental Assessment and preliminary Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR is also accessible via the Internet at:
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9341.
This action proposes regulations to implement Amendment 6 to the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed this amendment to establish management measures for the blueline tilefish fishery in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border, consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The management measures contained in Amendment 6 are summarized below, with additional information and analysis are provided in the Environmental Assessment (EA) (see
The blueline tilefish fishery in Federal waters south of the Virginia/North Carolina border is managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council as part of its Snapper-Grouper FMP. The fishery in the Mid-Atlantic has historically been minor and not subject to Federal management. In 2014, a closure of the blueline tilefish fishery in the South Atlantic resulted in a significant increase in commercial fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region and a 20-fold increase in blueline tilefish landings. At the request of the Mid-Atlantic Council, we implemented emergency management measures in June 2015 (80 FR 31864; June 4, 2015), to control harvest of blueline tilefish and reduce the risk of overfishing on this stock. The emergency measures were extended (80 FR 74712; November 30, 2015) to give the Council time to develop long-term management measures through Amendment 6. As work on Amendment 6 continued, we implemented additional interim measures (81 FR 39591; June 17, 2016) to control harvest during the peak fishing season in the summer and fall of 2016. Those interim measures expired December 14, 2016. Although management measures in Mid-Atlantic Federal waters lapsed, harvest of blueline tilefish in this region is still restricted by regulations implemented by several Mid-Atlantic states. Amendment 6 proposes to establish mechanisms and measures to ensure ongoing and consistent management of the blueline tilefish fishery in Federal waters north of the Virginia/North Carolina border.
We are proposing the Council's recommendation of a management unit for blueline tilefish encompassing the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from the North Carolina/Virginia border (36.550278 N Latitude) extending north to the maritime boundary with Canada.
The Council chose to adopt the management objectives of the current Tilefish FMP to also apply for blueline tilefish, with the addition that “management will reflect blueline tilefish's susceptibility of overfishing and the need of an analytical stock assessment.” The management objectives of the Tilefish FMP, as most recently updated by Amendment 1 (74 FR 42580; August 24, 2009), are: (1) Prevent overfishing and rebuild the resource to the biomass that would support maximum sustainable yield (MSY); (2) prevent overcapitalization and limit new entrants; (3) identify and describe essential tilefish habitat; and (4) collect necessary data to develop, monitor, and assess biological, economic, and social impacts of management measures designed to prevent overfishing and to reduce bycatch of tilefish in all fisheries.
Section 303(a)(10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs specify criteria for identifying when the fishery is overfished. Through Amendment 6, the Council has recommended to define stock status determination criteria for blueline tilefish based on the results of the most recent approved stock assessment, consistent with stocks managed under all of the Council's other FMPs. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) determined the most recent stock assessment for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic (SEDAR 32) does not adequately assess the Mid-Atlantic population. Therefore, the SEDAR 32 assessment does not provide a basis for directly specifying stock status determination criteria, including an overfished definition, at this time. The Council is recommending accountability measures in this amendment that rely on a biomass (B) threshold to determine when the stock is overfished. The recommended accountability measure considers the blueline tilefish stock to be overfished when the ratio of B/B
The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires all FMPs contain measures which are “necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing.” The Council's analysis in Amendment 6 indicates that there is insufficient scientific information currently available to establish a quantitative overfishing limit for the blueline tilefish population in the Mid-Atlantic. Analysis conducted by the Council's SSC found that constraining catch of Mid-Atlantic blueline tilefish to the recommended Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) of 87,031 lb (39,476 kg) would be unlikely to result in overfishing. Because this harvest limit is set at a level sufficient to prevent overfishing, we proposed that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement at 303(a)(1)(A).
We are proposing the following permitting and reporting requirements recommended by the Council as part of Amendment 6.
A commercial fishing vessel would be required to be issued an open-access tilefish commercial vessel permit in order to retain and land blueline tilefish. This is the same vessel permit that is already used for vessels fishing for golden tilefish, and vessel owners and operators would be subject to the current requirements to have an operator permit and to maintain and submit Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) for each fishing trip.
Fishing vessels that carry recreational anglers for hire would be required to have an open-access tilefish charter/party vessel permit in order to fish for, retain, or land blueline tilefish. This is the same vessel permit that is already used for charter and party vessels that fish for golden tilefish, and vessel owners and operators would be subject to the current requirements to have an operator permit and to maintain and submit Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) for each fishing trip.
A commercial seafood dealer must have a tilefish dealer permit in order to purchase, possess, or receive blueline tilefish harvested from the Tilefish Management Unit. This is the same dealer permit already in use for dealers of golden tilefish in the region.
Details about permit requirements for commercial fishing vessels, party/charter vessels, vessel operators, and commercial dealers, including application forms, are available at:
We propose to require private recreational anglers or vessels obtain a fishing permit to fish for or retain golden or blueline tilefish in the Tilefish Management Unit. However, additional development work is necessary before we can issue recreational tilefish permits or require private anglers to start reporting their catch. Potential factors being considered include: Whether to issue permits to individuals or vessels; whether to create a new recreational permit or create a new endorsement within the existing Highly Migratory Species permitting system; whether catch reporting should include all fish caught on a trip or just golden and blueline tilefish; and whether to develop a dedicated application for smartphones and tablets to report catch or use a web browser-based report.
While this proposed rule does not include specific regulatory text to propose the specifics of a private angler/vessel permit and reporting system, we are generally proposing these measures for approval, and seek public comment on the issues mentioned above. If generally approved as part of Amendment 6, the specific permitting and reporting measures for private recreational anglers/vessels fishing for tilefish will be proposed at a later date with additional opportunity for public comment, consistent with requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Commercial vessels would be limited to a maximum possession of 300 lb (136 kg) of blueline tilefish per trip. Blueline tilefish could be gutted, but must to be landed with the head and fins naturally attached.
The proposed recreational blueline tilefish possession limit would depend on the type of vessel used. Anglers fishing from private vessels would be allowed to keep up to three blueline tilefish per person per trip. Anglers fishing from a for-hire vessel that has been issued a valid Tilefish Charter/Party Permit, but does not have a current U.S. Coast Guard safety inspection sticker could retain up to five blueline tilefish per person per trip. Finally, anglers on for-hire vessels that
The recreational fishery for blueline tilefish would be open from May 1 through October 31, annually. Recreational anglers would be prohibited from fishing for or possessing blueline tilefish outside of this season.
Section 303(a)(15) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits (ACLs), implementing regulations, or annual specifications to prevent overfishing. In addition, the Act requires the Council's SSC to provide it with ongoing scientific advice, including recommendations for ABC (see MSA 302(g)(1)(B)).
Through Amendment 6, the Council opted to apply the same ABC control rules and risk policy it uses for other stocks it manages, described in the regulations at 50 CFR 648.20 and 648.21, respectively.
The ACL process proposed for blueline tilefish under Amendment 6 would be consistent with the specifications-setting process for other stocks managed by the Council. The Council's SSC would review the available scientific information, the ABC control rule, and other relevant information before making ABC recommendations to the Council for up to 3 years. The recommendations of the SSC would be reviewed by the existing Tilefish Monitoring Committee, which would provide recommendations to the Council and/or relevant committee to ensure the blueline tilefish specifications are not exceeded and to address any other operational aspects of the fishery. To establish specific harvest limits, the recommended ABC would be allocated, as described below, to establish separate ACLs for the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery. These ACLs may be reduced to account for management uncertainty to establish Annual Catch Targets (ACTs). Finally, anticipated discards would be subtracted to determine the total allowable landings (TAL) amount for each sector. The Council would develop other management measures (seasons, trip limits, etc. as described above) that would be expected to meet the TAL and not exceed the ACL. If the Council re-establishes a research set-aside program, up to 3 percent of the TAL could be set aside in such a program.
The Council used available catch records, including recreational catches reconstructed through a Council workshop through an iterative Delphi technique approach, to analyze options for allocating the allowable catch between the recreational and commercial sectors of the fishery. The Council opted to use the median catch percentages from 2009-2013. As a result, we are proposing the Amendment 6 recommended allocation of 73 percent of the annual catch to the recreational fishery and 27 percent to the commercial fishery.
Table 1 outlines proposed catch limits for blueline tilefish for the 2017 fishing year. We would count landings of blueline tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit that have already occurred in 2017 against these limits when determining if a harvest limit has been met or exceeded.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs include measures to ensure accountability with ACLs, and NMFS has created guidelines for how management measures might meet this requirement (see § 600.310(g)). We propose different accountability measures (AMs) to address the particular needs of the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery.
Commercial blueline tilefish landings would be monitored during the fishing year based on dealer reports and other available information. If we determine the commercial TAL will be exceeded, we would close the commercial blueline tilefish fishery, prohibiting possession or landing blueline tilefish for sale for the remainder of the fishing year, through publication of a notice in the
Catch data for the recreational fishery is much more uncertain than for the commercial fishery. We propose comparing a 3-year moving average of recreational catch to the 3-year average of the recreational ACL to determine whether the ACL has been exceeded and accountability measures for the recreational fishery are warranted. This would be phased in so that catch in 2017 would be compared to the 2017 ACL, and next year the average catch in 2017 and 2018 would be compared to the average ACL in 2017 and 2018. In subsequent years we would use 3-year moving averages. If this comparison shows the recreational ACL was exceeded, then the extent of the accountability measure would depend on the status of the stock and the significance of the overage.
If the most recent estimate of biomass is below the B
If the most recent estimate of biomass is above the biomass threshold, but
The Council recommends, and we propose to approve, the following EFH definition for different life stages of blueline tilefish based on the best available scientific information:
The Council is currently conducting a comprehensive review of EFH designations and fishery impacts on habitat for all Council-managed species, including blueline tilefish. The EFH Review Fishery Management Action Team will review scientific and technical information on fish habitat and develop recommendations as to whether changes to the existing EFH descriptions and other habitat components of the FMPs are warranted. Based on this review, the Council may choose to modify its FMPs (
Framework adjustments allow the Council to make changes to management measures that were previously considered in the FMP or FMP amendment through a more efficient process than a full FMP amendment. The Council recommends that actions currently able to be changed by a framework adjustment for golden tilefish could also be changed for blueline tilefish. In addition, changes to the blueline tilefish recreational/commercial allocations within the ranges previously considered by this action, could also be made through a framework adjustment. We propose the blueline tilefish management measures that could be changed by framework adjustment would be:
• Minimum fish size;
• Minimum hook size;
• Closed seasons;
• Closed areas;
• Gear restrictions or prohibitions;
• Permitting restrictions;
• Gear limits;
• Trip limits;
• Adjustments within existing ABC control rule levels;
• Adjustments to the existing Council risk policy;
• Introduction of new AMs, including sub ACTs;
• Annual specification quota setting process;
• Tilefish FMP Monitoring Committee composition and process;
• Description and identification of EFH;
• Fishing gear management measures that impact EFH;
• Habitat areas of particular concern;
• Set-aside quotas for scientific research;
• Changes, as appropriate, to the standardized bycatch reporting methodology, including the coefficient of variation-based performance standard, the means by which discard data are collected/obtained, fishery stratification, the process for prioritizing observer sea-day allocations, reports, and/or industry-funded observers or observer set aside programs;
• Recreational management measures, including the bag limit, minimum fish size limit, seasons, and gear restrictions or prohibitions;
• Blueline tilefish recreational permitting and reporting requirements previously considered by the Council; and
• Blueline tilefish allocations between the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery within the range of allocation alternatives considered by the Council in Amendment 6.
Measures that require significant departures from previously contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts may require a formal amendment of the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.
Pursuant to section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council has deemed that this proposed rule is necessary and appropriate for the purpose of implementing Amendment 6 to the Tilefish FMP. After the Council reviewed the proposed regulations, we decided to propose an additional regulation at § 648.296(c) to clarify enforcement of the tilefish recreational possession limits.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Acting Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Council prepared an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the action, which is included in the draft EA for this action and supplemented by information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliated operations, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including that for-hire fishing firms (NAICS code 487210) with receipts of up to $7.5 million are
For the 108 small commercial harvesting entities, their total revenues for 2013-2015 averaged $649,948 while their blueline tilefish revenues averaged $1,826. Revenue data were not available for the 36 small for-hire entities. However, during 2013-2015 the annual total number of fish kept by anglers on these vessels averaged 107,645 fish while the blueline tilefish kept averaged 560 fish. The 50 Federal dealers with blueline tilefish records averaged total annual purchases of $4.6 million during 2013-2015, while their average blueline tilefish purchases were just $9,543.
Given the low number of small entities involved in the blueline tilefish fishery, and the small proportion of revenues/fish represented by blueline tilefish for these small entities, this action will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” even if short term revenues are negatively affected for some entities. In addition, the proposed measures would not eliminate but only reduce fishing for blueline tilefish, and vessels and dealers would likely seek and be able to find ways to mitigate any possible revenue reductions related to restrictions on catch of blueline tilefish. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) This part implements the fishery management plans (FMPs) for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries (Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP); Atlantic salmon (Atlantic Salmon FMP); the Atlantic sea scallop fishery (Scallop FMP); the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries (Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP); the NE multispecies and monkfish fisheries ((NE Multispecies FMP) and (Monkfish FMP)); the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries (Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP); the Atlantic bluefish fishery (Atlantic Bluefish FMP); the Atlantic herring fishery (Atlantic Herring FMP); the spiny dogfish fishery (Spiny Dogfish FMP); the Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery (Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP); the golden and blueline tilefish fisheries (Tilefish FMP); and the NE skate complex fisheries (Skate FMP). These FMPs and the regulations in this part govern the conservation and management of the above named fisheries of the Northeastern United States.
(4) For the golden tilefish fishery, from November 1 through October 31 of the following year.
(2) A person or entity eligible to hold golden tilefish IFQ allocation, who receives temporarily transferred golden tilefish IFQ allocation, as specified at § 648.294(e)(1).
(2) An IFQ allocation permit holder who temporarily transfers golden tilefish IFQ allocation, as specified at § 648.294(e)(1).
(a) * * *
(12)
(i)
(A) A commercial vessel must fish under the authorization of a golden tilefish IFQ allocation permit, issued pursuant to § 648.294, to possess, or land golden tilefish in excess of the trip limit as specified under § 648.295(a).
(B) [Reserved]
(ii)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(u)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(B) Operate a vessel that takes recreational fishermen for hire to fish for golden or blueline tilefish in the Tilefish Management Unit without a valid Tilefish Charter/Party Vessel Permit, as required in § 648.4(a)(12)(i).
(2)
(A) The tilefish are being fished for or were harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit by a vessel holding a valid tilefish permit under this part, and the operator on board such vessel has been issued an operator permit that is on board the vessel.
(B) The tilefish were harvested by a vessel that has not been issued a tilefish permit and that was fishing exclusively in State waters.
(C) The tilefish were harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit by
(ii) Land or possess golden or blueline tilefish harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, in excess of either:
(A) The relevant commercial trip limit specified at § 648.295, unless possessing golden tilefish authorized pursuant to a valid tilefish IFQ allocation permit, as specified in § 648.294(a).
(B) The relevant recreational possession limit specified at § 648.296, if engaged in recreational fishing including charter/party vessels.
(iii) Land golden tilefish harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit in excess of that authorized under a tilefish IFQ allocation permit as described at § 648.294(a).
(iv) Fish for golden or blueline tilefish inside and outside of the Tilefish Management Unit on the same trip.
(v) Discard golden tilefish harvested in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, as defined in § 648.2, unless participating in recreational fishing, as defined in § 648.2, or while fishing subject to a trip limit pursuant to § 648.295(a).
(vi) Land or possess golden tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid tilefish permit under this part, after the incidental golden tilefish fishery is closed pursuant to § 648.295(a)(2), unless fishing under a valid tilefish IFQ allocation permit as specified in § 648.294(a), or engaged in recreational fishing.
(vii) Land or possess blueline tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid tilefish permit under this part, after the commercial blueline tilefish fishery is closed pursuant to § 648.295(b)(2), unless engaged in recreational fishing.
(viii) Land or possess blueline tilefish in or from the Tilefish Management Unit, on a vessel issued a valid commercial tilefish permit under this part, that do not have the head and fins naturally attached to the fish.
(3)
(ii) Purchase or otherwise receive for commercial purposes golden or blueline tilefish caught in the EEZ from outside the Tilefish Management Unit unless otherwise permitted under 50 CFR part 622.
(4)
(a)
(1) [Reserved]
(2)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(1) If an ACL is exceeded with a frequency greater than 25 percent (
(2) The MAFMC may specify more frequent or more specific ACL performance review criteria as part of a stock rebuilding plan following a determination that either the golden tilefish or blueline tilefish stock has become overfished.
(3) Performance reviews shall not substitute for annual reviews that occur to ascertain if prior year ACLs have been exceeded, but may be conducted in conjunction with such reviews.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) The sum of the TAL and the estimated discards shall be less than or equal to the ACT.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1)
(i) Total Allowable Landings (TAL) for both the commercial and recreational sectors for each fishing year, where the sum of the TAL and sector-specific estimated discards shall be less than or equal to the sector ACT;
(ii) Research quota for both the commercial and recreational sectors set from a range of 0 to 3 percent of the TAL, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
(iii) Commercial trip limit;
(iv) Commercial minimum fish size;
(v) Recreational possession limit;
(vi) Recreational minimum fish size;
(vii) Recreational season;
(viii) Retention requirements; and/or
(ix) Any other measure needed to ensure the ACLs are not exceeded.
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(
(
(iii)
(a)
(2) Allocations shall be issued in the form of an annual IFQ allocation permit. The IFQ allocation permit shall specify the quota share percentage held by the IFQ allocation permit holder and the total pounds of golden tilefish that the
(b)
(4)
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) A transfer of IFQ allocation or quota share will not be approved by the Regional Administrator if it would result in an entity holding, or having an interest in, a percentage of IFQ allocation exceeding 49 percent of the total golden tilefish adjusted TAL.
(iii) For the purpose of calculating the appropriate IFQ cost recovery fee, if the holder of an IFQ allocation leases additional IFQ allocation, the quantity and value of golden tilefish landings made after the date the lease is approved by the Regional Administrator are attributed to the transferred quota before being attributed to the allocation holder's base IFQ allocation, if any exists. In the event of multiple leases, landings would be attributed to the leased allocations in the order the leases were approved by the Regional Administrator. As described in paragraph (h) of this section, a tilefish IFQ quota share allocation holder shall incur a cost recovery fee, based on the value of landings of golden tilefish authorized under the allocation holder's annual tilefish IFQ allocation, including allocation that is leased to another IFQ allocation permit holder.
(4)
(f)
(g)
(h) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(ii)
(A) The ex-vessel value for each pound of golden tilefish landed by an IFQ allocation permit holder shall be determined from Northeast Federal dealer reports submitted to NMFS, which include the price per pound paid to the vessel at the time of dealer purchase.
(B) The cost recovery fee percentage shall not exceed 3 percent of the total value of golden tilefish landings, as required under section 304(d)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
(4) * * *
(i) At any time thereafter, notify the IFQ allocation permit holder in writing that his/her IFQ allocation permit is suspended, thereby prohibiting landings of tilefish above the incidental limit, as specified at § 648.295(a).
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xix) Recreational management measures, including the bag limit, minimum fish size limit, seasons, and gear restrictions or prohibitions;
(xx) Golden tilefish IFQ program review components, including capacity reduction, safety at sea issues, transferability rules, ownership concentration caps, permit and reporting requirements, and fee and cost-recovery issues;
(xxi) Blueline tilefish recreational permitting and reporting requirements previously considered by the MAFMC; and
(xxiii) Blueline tilefish allocations to the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery within the range of allocation alternatives considered by the MAFMC in Amendment 6.
(xxii) Measures that require significant departures from previously contemplated measures or that are otherwise introducing new concepts may require a formal amendment of the FMP instead of a framework adjustment.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by July 28, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of meetings.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, July 10-12, 2017 at the times and location listed below.
The schedule of events is as follows:
Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.
For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi,
At the Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon of Wednesday, July 12, 2017, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:
Members of the public can provide comments either in-person or over the telephone during the final 15 minutes of the Board meeting on Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Any individual interested in providing comment is asked to pre-register by sending an email to
All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meeting and committee meetings.
Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see
You may view the Wednesday, July 12, 2017 meeting through a live webcast from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at:
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of program.
This notice announces the commencement of Phase 2 of the 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program: The Voting District Project. This second phase specifically provides States the opportunity to provide the Census Bureau with their voting district boundaries (election precincts, wards, etc.). In addition, States have the opportunity to suggest to the Census Bureau legal boundary updates. State participation in Phase 2 of the Redistricting Data Program is voluntary.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 28, 2017. The deadline for States to notify the Census Bureau that they wish to participate in Phase 2: The Voting District Project is December 15, 2017.
Please address all written comments to James Whitehorne, Chief of the Census Redistricting and Voting Rights Data Office, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 4H057, Washington, DC 20233.
James Whitehorne, Chief of the Census Redistricting and Voting Rights Data Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 4H057, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-4039.
Under the provisions of Public Law 94-171, as amended (Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 141(c)), the Director of the Census Bureau is required to provide the “officers or public bodies with initial responsibility for legislative apportionment or districting of each state . . .” with the opportunity to specify small geographic areas (
By April 1 of the year following the census, the Secretary is required to furnish those State officials or their designees with population counts for counties, cities, census blocks, and State-specified congressional districts, legislative districts, and voting districts.
In accordance with the provisions of Title 13, U.S.C. Section 141(c), and on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, the Director announces the commencement of Phase 2 of the 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program. The purpose of this notice is to provide further information on the commencement of the 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program, Phase 2—The Voting District Project. Future
The 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program was initially announced on July 15, 2014, in the
Beginning in late summer of 2017, and by separate letter, the Census Bureau will invite each state to participate in Phase 2, the Voting District Project, through their previously designated liaison. This phase will include an opportunity to submit voting districts and then verify the submitted voting districts prior to release of the 2020 redistricting data tabulations in Phase 3. For each State responding by December 15, 2017, that wishes to participate in Phase 2, the Census Bureau will provide data from the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system (MAF/TIGER), an optional software tool (Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS)), and the procedures necessary for each State to begin work on Phase 2. States are not required to use the GUPS; however, they are required to provide their Phase 2 submission to the Census Bureau electronically in Census Bureau specified formats. During the submission period, the Census Bureau will provide training in the use of the GUPS and assist the states in understanding the procedures necessary for processing files for their submission.
The Census Bureau will continue to communicate with each State to ensure they are well informed on the benefits of working with the Census Bureau towards a successful 2020 Census. In addition, the Redistricting Data Office will continue to work with each State to ensure they are prepared to participate in all phases of the Redistricting Data Program. Every State, regardless of their
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Melissa McKinney, Ph.D., University of Connecticut, Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering, 3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, U-4210, Storrs, CT 06269, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 19425.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 28, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
These documents are also available 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.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301)713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Carrie Hubard or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 19425 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 19425, issued on July 31, 2015 (80 FR 52453), authorizes the permit holder to analyze marine mammal samples to study contaminant levels, specifically using fatty acid and table isotopes to examine diets and contaminant loads and how they are affected by climate change. Cetacean and pinniped tissue samples come from remote biopsy sampling, captured animals, and animals collected during subsistence harvests and originate in the United States, Canada, and Greenland/Denmark. No live animals are harassed or taken, lethally or otherwise, under the permit. The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to increase the number of samples from 50 per year to 300 per year, for both pinniped and cetacean species. The additional samples would increase the robustness of the analyses. The permit is valid through August 1, 2020.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), ATTN: Ms. Kristin Williams, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04E25, Alexandria, VA 22350, or call (571) 372-1033.
UOCAVA requires the States to allow Uniformed Services personnel, their family members, and overseas citizens to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal offices. The Act covers members of the Uniformed Services and the merchant marine to include the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Public Health Service and their eligible dependents, Federal civilian employees overseas, and overseas U.S. citizens not affiliated with the Federal Government. Local Election Officials (LEO) process voter registration and absentee ballot applications, send absentee ballots to voters, and receive and process the voted ballots in counties, cities, parishes, townships and other jurisdictions within the U.S. LEOs, independently and in relation to their respective State election officials, are often one of the most important pieces in the absentee voting process for UOCAVA citizens. The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) conducts the post-election survey of Local Election Officials to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall absentee voting program. The information collected will be qualitative and will be used for overall program evaluation, management and improvement, and to compile the congressionally-mandated report to the President and Congress.
Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Innovation Board will take place.
Open to the public, Wednesday, July 12, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The open meeting will be held in the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental Auditorium at Moffett Field, 230 R T Jones Road, Mountain View, CA 94043. Additionally, the open meeting will be live streamed for those who are unable to physically attend the meeting.
Roma Laster, (703) 695-7563 (Voice), (703) 614-4365 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 28, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Stephanie Tatham, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 28, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, DoD.
This notice amends existing STRL Personnel Management Demonstration Project Programs.
STRLs may implement a new direct hire authority to appoint and noncompetitively convert to the competitive service qualified candidates enrolled in a program of undergraduate or graduate instruction leading to an undergraduate or advanced degree in a scientific, technical, engineering or mathematical course of study. STRLs may appoint students to a temporary, term, modified term (for those STRLs with modified term appointment authority), or flexible length student term appointment that will expire 120 days after completion of the designated academic course of study. Students may also be appointed to temporary, term or flexible length student term appointments at the discretion of the STRL Director. Students hired under the Scientific, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Student Employment Program (SSEP) may receive a relocation incentive/bonus each time the SSEP student returns to duty similar to the authority granted to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in 75 FR 53076, August 30, 2010.
This notice may be implemented beginning on June 28, 2017.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
○
○
Dr. Jagadeesh Pamulapati, Director, DoD Laboratories Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350, (571) 372-6372,
Section 342(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995, Public Law (Pub. L.) 103-337, as amended by section 1109 of the NDAA for FY 2000, Public Law 106-65, and section 1114 of the NDAA for FY 2001, Public Law 106-398, authorizes the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) to conduct personnel demonstration projects at DoD laboratories designated as STRLs. All STRLs authorized by section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2010, Public Law 111-84, as well as any newly-designated STRLs authorized by SECDEF or future legislation may use the provisions described in this
Section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2015 establishes a new direct hire authority for students enrolled in a scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematics course of study at an accredited institution of higher education on a temporary or term basis. The purpose of this direct-hire authority is to provide a streamlined and accelerated hiring process that allows the STRLs to compete successfully with private industry for high-quality scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematics students for filling STRL scientific and engineering positions. This authority creates a unique student hiring authority for the STRL scientific and engineering positions: The STEM SSEP. Section 1104 of the NDAA for FY16 provides students appointed under the SSEP the opportunity for noncompetitive conversion to a permanent scientific or engineering position upon graduation from the applicable institution of higher education.
To effectively implement the SSEP, this FRN also:
1. Establishes SSEP student employment qualification standards, similar to the Pathways qualification standards, which will allow students appointed under this authority to be aligned to a pay band/grade commensurate with the highest level of education completed and/or prior experience.
2. Establishes a flexible length student term appointment, which will provide a mechanism for students appointed under the SSEP to remain on a term appointment until completion of their educational program. Absent this flexibility, SSEP appointees would be limited to a four-year appointment in accordance with 5 CFR 316.301.
Section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2015 permits the Department to waive subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, U.S Code (U.S.C.) (other than sections 3303 and 3328) when using the SSEP direct-hire authority. Section 1104 of the NDAA for FY 2016 permits the Department to waive provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, U.S.C. (other than sections 3303 and 3328) and provides for noncompetitive conversion of SSEP students. Appendix A lists the laws, rules, and regulations that require waivers to implement the authorities described in this FRN.
This direct-hire authority is expected to streamline the hiring and development of high-quality SSEP students pursuing bachelors or advanced degrees in STEM courses of study. This direct-hire and noncompetitive conversion authority enhances the STRLs' ability to compete with private industry by improving recruiting efforts; providing clear career tracks for STEM students from undergraduate through post-graduate school; and offering career progression opportunities for STEM students who join the STRL scientific and engineering workforce.
All DoD laboratories designated as STRLs under section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2010 and section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (including any newly-designated STRLs authorized by SECDEF or by future legislation) with approved personnel management demonstration project plans published in FRNs may use the provisions described in this FRN.
All current STRL demonstration project plans are hereby amended to add the following:
STRLs may use the direct-hire authority authorized by section 1105 of the NDAA for FY 2015 to appoint students pursuing bachelors or advanced degrees in STEM disciplines to temporary, term, flexible length student term, or, for those STRLs with modified term appointment authority, via modified term appointments. STRLs may use the authority authorized by section 1104 of the NDAA for FY 2016 to provide SSEP students noncompetitive conversion to permanent scientific or engineering positions upon graduation from the applicable institution of higher education provided the students meet all eligibility criteria and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) qualification requirements for the position.
1. STEM positions are those positions described in the STRL FRN (Appendix B) or internal operating procedures in the Scientist and Engineer and/or Technical Career Paths. The positions not classified under the broad-banding structure will be identified in respective STRL internal operating procedures.
2. Institution of higher education is defined in sections 1001 and 1002 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
3. Qualified candidates are defined as students who:
(a) Are enrolled (or accepted for enrollment) in a program of undergraduate or graduate instruction leading to a bachelor's or advanced degree in a (STEM) course of study at an institution of higher education as that term is defined in section B.2., and includes those enrolled in a 2-year university parallel (or equivalent) program designed specifically for transfer to a 4-year institution.
(b) Meet the minimum qualification standards for the position as described in Appendix C of this FRN or the specific STRL demonstration project qualification standards for the position to be filled.
4. “Employee” is defined by 5 U.S.C. 2105.
1. Use of this appointment authority must be consistent with merit system principles.
2. Student appointments authorized by section 1105 of the NDAA for 2015 may be term, modified term, flexible length student term or temporary. If students are appointed under existing term or modified term appointments
3. Qualified candidates may be appointed to scientific and engineering student positions without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33, title 5, U.S.C. (other than sections 3303 and 3328).
4. Upon graduation from the applicable institution of higher education, successful candidates in section 2.II.C.3. may be noncompetitively converted to permanent scientific or engineering positions in the competitive service within the STRL without regard to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 33 (other than sections 3303 and 3328).
5. During each calendar year, each STRL may use this authority to appoint no more than (10) percent of the total number of scientific and engineering positions within the STRL that are filled at the close of the previous fiscal year.
6. Classification/Pay Bands/Career Tracks. This FRN authorizes the STRLs to establish separate pay band/career track level(s) or to modify existing pay band/career track level(s) and classification guidelines to accommodate students hired under this direct-hire authority. Specific details regarding student classification pay band/career track level(s) shall be included in the respective STRLs' internal operating procedures.
7. Temporary Appointments (Students). Temporary appointments are typically used for short-term use (
8. Flexible Length Student Term Appointments (Students). A flexible length student term appointment authority is created for SSEP students appointed for a period of at least one year. The flexible length student term appointment will have no end date, but will expire 120 days after completion of the designated academic course of study unless the human resources office has been notified via receipt of a Request for Personnel Action (SF-52) for noncompetitive conversion to a permanent position. The eligibility criteria for the student appointment must continue to be met for the duration of the appointment. SSEP participants who complete one educational program and continue to meet the definition of “student” in section 2.II.B.3(a) while further pursuing their education are not counted against the direct-hire allocation in 2.II.C.5 as a new appointment.
(a) Promotion. Students may be promoted while serving on the flexible length student term appointment to a higher grade/band level provided the student meets the program and qualification requirements for the position.
9. SSEP participants must complete a probationary period in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1599e, or an approved STRL Lab Demo extended probationary period requirement, upon conversion to the competitive service. When an SSEP participant is converted directly from the SSEP to a permanent, competitive service position in a similar line of work without a break in service, time spent in the SSEP may be credited toward probationary period completion in accordance with title 5 CFR 315.802.
10. Documenting Personnel Actions (Students). Personnel actions for appointments of SSEP appointees are documented citing the first legal authority code (LAC)/legal authority as Z2U/Public Law 103-337. The second LAC/legal authority will be Z5CD/Direct-Hire Auth (STRL-Student), section 1105(1)(a)(3), Public Law 113-291, 12/19/2014.
11. Noncompetitive Conversion to Permanent Appointment. Students on temporary, term, or flexible length student term SSEP appointments may be noncompetitively converted to a permanent appointment at the discretion of the STRL director. The authority to convert the student to a permanent position may be further delegated in the STRL's internal operating procedures. These conversions do not count against the direct-hire allocation in 79 FR 43722, July 28, 2014, paragraph 2.II.B.4.
(a) Students employed under the SSEP may be noncompetitively converted to a permanent appointment upon graduation from the applicable institution of higher learning, provided the student meets all eligibility criteria and OPM qualification requirements for the STRL scientific or engineering position.
(b) The conversion request must be submitted to the human resources office within 120 days of completion of all degree requirements, but before the time-limited appointment expires.
(1) Time spent under a term or flexible length student term appointment shall count towards probationary period completion and career tenure. If the student was converted from a temporary to a term or flexible length student term appointment without a break in service of three days and was subsequently converted to a permanent position, the temporary time shall also count towards career tenure.
(2) Time spent under a temporary appointment, unless otherwise provided in section 2.II.C.11(b)(1), is not counted towards career tenure.
(3) SSEP students are subject to a probationary period as specified in section 2.II.C.9.
(4) The provisions of the career transition assistance programs in subparts B, F, and G of 5 CFR part 330 do not apply to the noncompetitive conversions.
(c) In cases where the STRL Director does not plan to convert the SSEP student to a permanent position, the SSEP's Flexible Length Student Term appointment may be terminated less than 120 days after completion of the designated academic course of study, subject to any applicable requirements of 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.
12. Documenting Personnel Actions (Noncompetitive Conversions). Personnel actions for noncompetitive conversions of SSEP participants to permanent appointments are documented citing the first legal authority code (LAC)/legal authority as Z2U/Public Law 103-337. The second LAC/legal authority will be Z5CE/Direct-Hire Auth (STRL-SSEP Conv), section 1104, Public Law 114-92, 11/25/2015.
13. Recruitment flexibilities.
(a) Tuition Assistance.
(1) Students may be eligible for tuition assistance. At the STRL Director's discretion, a student may be required to sign a written service agreement to continue in service for a period of up to three times the length of the time spent in training prior to accepting tuition assistance. The requirement for the length of the service obligation should be included in the respective STRL's internal operating procedures.
(2) A student who is eligible to continue employment for the duration of the obligated service and who does
(3) Expenses of training. Students hired under the SSEP may be paid travel expenses when the worksite is in a different geographic location than that of the student's academic institution. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4109(a)(2), these expenses may be paid each time the student returns to duty to the STRL. Procedures for paying these expenses shall be documented in the STRL's respective internal operating procedures.
(b) Pay Flexibilities.
(1) STRLs may use any applicable pay flexibilities (
(2) Relocation Incentive/Bonus. Students hired under the SSEP may receive a relocation incentive/bonus. The authority to pay relocation incentives is expanded to allow an STRL to pay an incentive each time the student returns to duty to the laboratory. This authority applies to all student positions in the STRLs and provides the ability to expand recruitment to top universities and incentivize mobility by paying additional expenses to students accepting employment outside of their geographic area. A relocation bonus may be paid when the worksite is in a different geographic location than that of the student's college and is intended to cover some or all of the student's living expenses while working in the STRL. Procedures for paying these incentives shall be documented in the STRLs internal operating procedures. This section provides all designated STRLs the authority to implement a relocation bonus similar to the authority granted to the AFRL in the Air Force Research Laboratory in 75 FR 53076.
1. Work Schedules. There are no limitations on the number of hours a student can work per week as long as all applicable laws and regulations governing overtime and hours of work are adhered to. Supervisors and students should agree on a schedule of school and work such that work responsibilities do not interfere unduly with the academic schedule and that completion of the educational program is accomplished.
2. Break in Program. STRL directors may use their discretion in either approving or denying a request for a break in program. This may be further delegated in the STRLs' internal operating procedures. A break in program is a period of time when the student is working but is unable to go to school, or is neither attending classes nor working.
3. Reduction in Force (RIF). Demonstration project students are covered by the RIF rules outlined in each STRL's FRN. Students serving under a temporary appointment are covered under Tenure Group 0 until completion of one year of continuous creditable civilian service. If the temporary appointment is extended for an additional year, then the tenure changes to Tenure Group 3. Students serving on a term appointment are covered under Tenure Group 3.
All STRL RIF rules must be updated to incorporate the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 1597(f).
4. Termination.
(a) Temporary appointments expire upon the not-to-exceed date, unless extended.
(b) Flexible Length Student Term appointments for SSEP students expire 120 days after completion of the designated academic course of study, unless the human resources office has been notified that the student will be converted noncompetitively to a permanent position as described in paragraph 2.II.C.11.
(c) Individuals may retain eligibility for SSEP if they continue to meet the definition of a “student” (
(d) Students may be terminated for reasons including, but not limited to, mission requirements, misconduct, poor performance (including academic), or suitability.
1. SSEP appointments. The number of appointments made in a calendar year may not exceed 10 percent of the total number of scientific and engineering positions in such STRL, to include Senior Executive Service, Senior Technical, Senior Scientific Technical Manager or above General Schedule (GS)-15, military, and students within the STRL that are filled as of the close of the fiscal year ending before the start of such calendar year.
2. When determining the number of appointments authorized, if the percentage of authorized positions does not equal a whole number, the STRL shall round down to the next lower number.
3. Any changes to these authorizations, such as (but not limited to) increasing the number of appointments allowed or extending/eliminating the sunset date, do not require additional FRN notification.
STRLs will provide information and data on the use of these direct-hire appointment authorities including numerical limitations, hires made, declinations, veterans hired, difficulties encountered, and/or recognized efficiencies when requested by the SECDEF, head of the Military Department, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research & Engineering), or Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy).
This standard describes the qualification requirements for the STEM Student Employment Program (SSEP) participants.
Appointments may be at the highest grade or level for which the participant is qualified.
One full academic year of undergraduate; graduate; technical or high school education is the number of credit hours determined by the college, university or school to represent one year of full-time study. The high school curriculum must be approved by a State or local governing body. All education beyond the high school level must be accredited by an accrediting body or organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent; withdrawal.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), on January 4, 2011, the Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) initiated the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to identify and analyze potential impacts associated with the proposed Chuitna Coal Mine Project to assist in evaluating a Department of the Army permit application pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. On March 30, 2017, the applicant announced its decision to suspend pursuit of permitting efforts on the project. Therefore, the Corps is terminating the EIS process, and is withdrawing the Notice of Intent published in the Tuesday, January 4, 2011, issue of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CEPOA-RD, Post Office Box 6898, JBER, Alaska 99506-0898.
Questions regarding this action can be addressed by Jason Berkner, Regulatory Division, by telephone: (907) 753-5778 (toll free from within Alaska: (800) 478-2712), by fax: (907) 753-5567, by email:
PacRim Coal, LP, requested Corps authorization, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, to develop the Chuitna Coal Project (Project), which was comprised of three components; the mine site, the project infrastructure, and the marine port. The Project consisted of mining a 5,050-acre lease tract with coal reserves of approximately 300 million tons of sub-bituminous ultra-low sulfur coal. The Project, as proposed, would have resulted in the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into an approximate total of 2,550 acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 26 miles of streams, and marine waters. Due to the potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project, on January 4, 2011, the Corps issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (76 FR 336). The EIS would have also assessed issues related to the Alaska Surface Coal Mining Control and Reclamation Act (ASCMCRA) permit, which governs all aspects of the coal mining operation and infrastructure. On November 2, 2016, the Corps administratively withdrew the PacRim Coal, LP application for the Project pending State of Alaska's completeness determination on the ASCMCRA application. A complete ASCMCRA application would have confirmed availability of the information required by the Corps to enable informed public comment and review of the DA permit application, and development of the EIS. On March 30, 2017, the applicant announced its decision to suspend pursuit of permitting efforts on the Project. Therefore, in accordance with Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 230, Appendix C(2) and 33 CFR part 325, Appendix B(g), the Corps is terminating the EIS process, and is withdrawing the January 4, 2011, notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the proposal.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for the International Research and Studies Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.017A.
Cheryl E. Gibbs, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E245, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-5690 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.
The Department is authorized to invite applications for research, surveys, or studies and applications for instructional materials for an IRS competition. For FY 2017, however, the Department is inviting applications only for research, surveys, or studies.
This priority is:
Applications that propose research projects, surveys, or studies.
These priorities are:
Under this priority the Department gives competitive preference to research projects, studies, and surveys focused on Dual Language Immersion (DLI) programs in U.S. preschool to grade 12 schools. For the purpose of this priority, a DLI program means a program that includes native English-speaking students and native speakers of a foreign language. The goals of DLI programs are to develop bilingualism/biliteracy, academic achievement, and cross-cultural competencies for all students. In DLI programs, students learn content through both their native language and the target language.
Topics may include, but are not limited to, the effect of participation in DLI programs on student outcomes such as proficiency level in the second language or graduation or employment rates; the effectiveness of specific DLI approaches or models; the relationship between DLI instruction and learners' cognitive and problem-solving skills or achievement in other academic areas; the availability and articulation of DLI programming as students matriculate through the grade levels in their current school or at other educational institutions, and the effect of DLI programming on students' progress in the second language or on other outcomes; and contexts that may support successful adoption of DLI, among other topics.
Under this priority the Department gives competitive preference to research projects, surveys, and studies that focus on the outcomes of participation in and/or access to international education programs for students in the U.S. postsecondary education sector. Topics may include, but are not limited to: The relationship between participation in international education and students' persistence, completion, and/or academic and/or personal achievement in postsecondary education; underserved students' access to, and participation and success in international education; the impact of international education participation on career readiness and post-college employment outcomes; and international education and the development of global competence that contributes to economic competitiveness, among other topics.
For the purpose of this priority:
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the IRS Program, CFDA number 84.017A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the IRS Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Cheryl E. Gibbs, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E245, Washington, DC 20202-4260. FAX: (202) 453-5780.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.017A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.017A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to theDepartment—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
Performance reports for the IRS Program must be submitted electronically using the International Resource Information System (IRIS), the International and Foreign Language Education office's web-based reporting system. For information about the system and to view the reporting instructions, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
1. Percentage of IRS projects that are focused on improving or strengthening K-16 instruction in less commonly taught languages, area studies, or other international fields.
2. Percentage of IRS projects that are focused on the evaluation of the outcomes and effectiveness of Title VI-Fulbright-Hays International Education programs in addressing national needs.
3. Percentage of IRS projects that result in information from IRS studies, surveys, or research on language, area, and international studies being made available and accessible to the public.
4. The cost per IRS project that is focused on improving or strengthening K-16 instruction in modern foreign languages, area studies, and other international fields.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
On June 20, 2017, Pioneer Valley, LLC, filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Pioneer Valley Hydro Site Project would have a combined installed capacity of 6 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along two sections of an existing irrigation pipeline. The project would be located near the Town of Cimarron in Gunnison County, Colorado.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that on June 16, 2017, Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (DETI), located at 707 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), seeking authorization to plug and abandon “future storage” wells: JW-452F, JW-453F, JW-539F and associated pipelines: JP-419, JP-421, JP-448, JP-449, JP-451, JP-453 and Meter: 5104601 located in the Oakford Storage Complex in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. DETI and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP jointly own the Oakford Storage Complex as tenants in common with equal undivided one-half interests. DETI is the operator of the Oakford Storage Complex and as the operator is making this filing on behalf of both parties. The certificated physical parameters, including total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated capacity (including injection and withdrawal capacity) of the Oakford Storage Complex will remain unchanged, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Kenan W. Carioti, Regulatory & Certificates Analyst III, Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 707 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219, by phone (804) 771-4018 or by Email:
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and ill not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 5, of a proposed
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2017.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 5 offices at 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Maria Gonzalez, Associate Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments should reference the Lammers Barrel Superfund Site, and EPA Docket No. V-W-17-C-006 and should be addressed to Maria Gonzalez, Associate Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, IL 60604.
Maria Gonzalez, Associate Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, IL 60604. Telephone: 312-886-6630. E-Mail:
EPA executed a Consent Decree with Sixteen major parties, the owner, twenty-one
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before August 28, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
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.
Section 110 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 extended funding for outreach and assistance for low income programs under the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA). Older Americans Act (OAA) Title VI Native American Programs can fill an important role in providing valuable support to help eligible Native American elders in accessing the Low Income Subsidy program (LIS), Medicare Savings Program (MSP), Medicare Part D, Medicare prevention benefits and screenings and in assisting beneficiaries in applying for benefits. The purpose of these MIPPA grants will be to help inform eligible Native American elders about these benefits. The Administration for Community Living's (ACL) Administration on Aging (AoA) seeks certification from OAA Title VI Native American programs that they will use the funds to coordinate at least one community announcement and at least one community outreach event to inform and assist eligible American Indian, Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian elders about the benefits available to them through Medicare Part D, the Low Income Subsidy, the Medicare Savings Program or Medicare prevention benefits and screenings and counsel those who are eligible.
ACL/AoA has a total budget of $270,000 for the Tribes and will provide a grant of at least $1,000 to each Older Americans Act Title VI Native American grantee. ACL reserves the right to adjust funding levels subject to the number of applications received and availability of funds. ACL/AoA will award grants of at
Only current Older Americans Act Title VI Native American Program grantees are eligible to apply for this funding opportunity. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.
The program instructions and one-page application template for this funding opportunity are available at
To receive consideration, signed applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on August 15, 2017. No applications will be accepted after this date. Submit your signed application via:
(1) Email to
(2)
Direct inquiries regarding this funding opportunity to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201, attention: Cecelia Aldridge or by calling (202) 795-7293 or by email
The Administration on Aging, an agency of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, has been funding the Eldercare Locator (the Locator) since 1991. The Eldercare Locator links older persons and their caregivers to resources through a nationally recognized toll-free number, 1-800-677-1116 and Web site (
The Eldercare Locator call center utilizes live agents to help callers find their way through the maze of services for older adults by linking to a trustworthy network of national, State, Tribal and community organizations and services. In 2011, an additional feature was added to assist older adults and caregivers who require more in depth support the opportunity to speak with highly trained eldercare consultants who can better triage the situation.
Over the past several years there has been a steady increase in the number of callers to the Eldercare Locator growing from 180,000 calls in 2011 to over 308,000 in 2016. The calls are becoming more complex and requiring additional time to resolve. There is a need to increase the number of staff available to handle complex issues and increase call volumes. In addition, there is a need to update and enhance the educational tools and resources, such as tip sheets and brochures, available from the Eldercare Locator to better educate callers about eldercare services and resources.
For further information or comments regarding this program expansion supplement, contact Sherri Clark, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201; telephone (202) 795-7327; email
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is soliciting written comments on the
In order for comments on the proposed vision, mission, overarching goals, and framework for
The proposed framework for
Ayanna Johnson, Public Health Advisor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100, Rockville, MD 20852,
42 U.S.C. 200u.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Frederick National Laboratory Advisory Committee to the National Cancer Institute.
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 discussion of research projects/programs could disclose unpublished and financial data, technical information, confidential trade secrets or commercial property, such as patentable material, and personal information concerning investigators/individuals, 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 a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The portion of the meeting devoted to the identification and evaluation of specific candidates for consideration for a leadership position in the Clinical Center will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of potential candidates and their qualifications, as well as the discussions by the committee, could significantly frustrate NIH's ability to recruit these individuals and the consideration of personnel qualifications, performance, and the competence of individuals as candidates would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of September 29, 2017 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
I. Non-watershed-based studies:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4317-DR), dated June 2, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective Date: June 2, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 2, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Missouri resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of April 28 to May 11, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L. Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bollinger, Butler, Carter, Douglas, Dunklin, Franklin, Gasconade, Howell, Jasper, Jefferson, Madison, Maries, McDonald, Newton, Oregon, Osage, Ozark, Pemiscot, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon, St. Louis, Stone, Taney, and Texas Counties for Individual Assistance.
Barry, Barton, Bollinger, Butler, Camden, Carter, Cedar, Christian, Cole, Crawford, Dade, Dallas, Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Franklin, Gasconade, Howell, Iron, Jefferson, Lawrence, Madison, Maries, McDonald, Miller, Morgan, Newton, Oregon, Osage, Ozark, Perry, Phelps, Pike, Pulaski, Ralls, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon, St. Louis, Stone, Taney, Texas, Washington, Wayne, Webster, and Wright Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Missouri are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for reinstatement and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The reinstatement submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Patricia Pritchett, Program Specialist, Response Directorate, Operations Division, National Response Coordination Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency, (202) 646-3411.
This information collection previously published in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via teleconference on Friday, July 14, 2017. The meeting will be open to the public.
The NSTAC will meet on Friday, July 14, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held via conference call. For access to the conference call bridge, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance to attend, please email
Members of the public are invited to provide comment on the issues that will be considered by the committee as listed in the
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the conference call on Friday, July 14, 2017, from 2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. EST. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register in advance by no later than Monday, July 10, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. EST by emailing
Helen Jackson, NSTAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, (703) 705-6276 (telephone) or
Notice of this meeting is given under 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 28, 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 General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the first quarter of calendar year 2017.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the first quarter of calendar year 2017) before the next report is published (the second quarter of calendar year 2017), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the first quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HUD granted the waiver with the following mandatory conditions: (1) The city must provide written notification to the Fort Worth Regional Office of its adoption and publication of its standards for determining affordable rents; (2) the city must require the project developer to record a use restriction against the project property that will impose a ten-year affordability requirement, requiring at least 20 percent of the units to be occupied by LMI households; (3) the city will conduct annual, on-site monitoring to verify compliance with the conditions for the duration of the affordability period; (4) the city will provide HUD Financial Management Division and the Regional Office a status report not later than 15 days from the end of each quarter during the construction and lease-up period, and through the affordability period if required by the Regional Office, that includes updates on construction completion, Section 108 funds disbursement, initial occupancy of LMI units, and any other information as required by the Regional Office. The actions required under conditions (1) and (2) must be completed prior to HUD's guarantee of a note or other obligation pursuant to the loan guarantee commitment for the project.
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
1. Occupancy is no less than 93% for previous 12 months;
2. No defaults in the last 12 months of the HFA loan to be refinanced;
3. A 20-year affordable housing deed restriction placed on title that conforms to the 542(c)-statutory definition;
4. A Property Capital Needs Assessment (PCNA) must be performed and funds escrowed for all necessary repairs, and reserves funded for future capital needs; and
5. For projects subsidized by Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts:
a. Owner agrees to renew HAP contract(s) for 20-year term, (subject to appropriations and statutory authorization, etc.,), and
b. In accordance with regulations found in 24 CFR 883.306(e), and Housing Notice 2012-14—Use of “New Regulation” Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts Residual Receipts of Offset Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments, if at any time MHP determines that a project's excess funds (surplus cash) after project operations, reserve requirements and permitted distributions are met, MHP must place the excess funds into a separate interest-bearing account. Upon renewal of a HAP Contract the excess funds can be used to reduce future HAP payments or other project operations/purposes. When the HAP Contract expires, is terminated, or any extensions are terminated, any unused funds remaining in the Residual Receipt Account at the time of the contract's termination must be returned to HUD.
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
Physical inspections are required to ensure that public housing units are decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair, as determined by an inspection conducted in accordance with HUD's Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS). Baseline inspections will have all properties inspected regardless of previous PHAS designation or physical inspection scores.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Council will meet via teleconference to select North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) U.S. Standard grant proposals for recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. This meeting is open to the public, and interested persons may present oral or written statements.
Sarah Mott, Council Coordinator, by phone at 703-358-1784; by email at
In accordance with the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended; NAWCA), the State-private-Federal North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. NAWCA provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA Web site at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions to be considered during the public meeting. If you wish to make information available to the Council for their consideration prior to the meeting, you must contact the Council Coordinator by the date in
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation at the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, by the date specified above in
Summary minutes of the Council meeting will be maintained by the Council Coordinator at the address under
We issue this notice under the authority of NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by July 31, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, BLM, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Ch. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California State Office, Sacramento, California. The surveys, which were executed at the request of Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by July 28, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Jon Kehler, Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825; 1-916-978-4310;
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, within 30 days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of temporary closure and restrictions.
Under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Winnemucca District, Black Rock Field Office, will implement a temporary closure and temporary restrictions to protect public safety and resources on public lands within and adjacent to the Burning Man event on the Black Rock Desert playa.
The temporary closure and temporary restrictions will be in effect from July 31, 2017, to September 20, 2017.
Mark E. Hall, Field Manager, BLM Black Rock Field Office, Winnemucca District, 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445-2921; telephone: 775-623-1500; email:
The temporary closure and temporary restrictions affect public lands within and adjacent to the Burning Man event
The temporary closure area comprises 14,153 acres in Pershing County, Nevada and is necessary for the period of time from July 31, 2017, to September 20, 2017, because of the Burning Man event, whose activities begin with fencing the site perimeter, Black Rock City setup, followed by the actual event (August 27 to September 4), Black Rock City tear down and cleanup, and final site cleanup. This event is authorized on public land under Special Recreation Permit #NVW03500-17-01.
The public closure area comprises about 13 percent of the Black Rock Desert playa. Public access to the other 87 percent of the playa outside the temporary closure area will remain open to dispersed casual use.
The event area is fully contained within the temporary closure area. The event area is defined as the portion of the temporary closure area that: (1) Is entirely contained within the event perimeter fence, including 50 feet from the outside of the event perimeter fence; (2) Lies within 25 feet from the outside edge of the event access road; and (3) Includes the entirety of the aircraft parking area outside the event perimeter fence.
The temporary closure and restrictions are necessary to provide a safe environment for the paid participants and members of the public visiting the Black Rock Desert, and to protect public-land resources by addressing law-enforcement and public-safety concerns associated with the event. The temporary closure and restrictions are also necessary to enable BLM law enforcement personnel to provide for public safety and to protect the public lands as well as to support and assist State and local agencies with enforcement of existing laws. The permitted event takes place within Pershing County, Nevada, a rural county with a small population and a small Sheriff's Department. Key BLM staff members—including the authorizing officer for the 2017 event, the event incident commander, and the law enforcement operations chief—met with the Pershing County Sheriff and his planning team to coordinate and plan the 2017 event. The Sheriff's input and comments are incorporated in this closure order.
The event attracts up to 70,000 paid participants to a remote, rural area, located more than 90 miles from urban infrastructure and support, including such services as public safety, emergency medical delivery, transportation, and communication. During the event, Black Rock City, the temporary city associated with the event, becomes one of the largest population areas in Nevada.
A temporary closure and restrictions order, under the authority of 43 CFR 8364.1, is appropriate for a single event. The temporary closure and restrictions are specifically tailored to the time frame that is necessary to provide a safe environment for the public and for participants at the Burning Man event and to protect public land resources while avoiding imposing restrictions that may not be necessary in the area during the remainder of the year.
The BLM will post copies of the temporary closure, temporary restrictions, and an associated map in kiosks at access points to the Black Rock Desert playa as well as at the Gerlach Post Office, Bruno's Restaurant, Empire Store, Black Rock City offices, Friends of Black Rock-High Rock offices, the BLM—Nevada Black Rock Station near Gerlach, and the BLM—California Applegate Field Office. The BLM will also make the materials available on the Winnemucca District's external Web page at:
In addition to the Nevada Collateral Forfeiture and Bail Schedule as authorized by the United States District Court, District of Nevada and under the authority of Section 303(a) of FLPMA, 43 CFR 8360.0-7 and 43 CFR 8364.1, the BLM will enforce a temporary public closure and the following temporary restrictions will apply within and adjacent to the Burning Man event on the Black Rock Desert playa from July 31, 2017, through September 20, 2017:
(1) No person may deface, disturb, remove or destroy any natural object.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(a) The secondary containment system must be free of cracks or gaps and constructed of materials impermeable to the fuel(s) being stored; and
(b) The secondary containment system must be designed to allow the removal of any liquids captured resulting from leaks, spills, or precipitation.
(9)
In accordance with Handbook H-2930-1 Chapter 1-C. Vending and the 2017 Special Recreation Permit Stipulation for the permitted event, all vendors and air carrier services must provide proof of authorization to operate at the event issued by the permitting agency and/or the permit holder upon request. Failure to provide such authorization would potentially result in eviction from the event.
The public closure area is closed to aircraft landing, taking off, and taxiing. Aircraft is defined in Title 18, U.S.C., section 31(a)(1) and includes lighter-than-air craft and ultra-light craft. The following exceptions apply:
(1) All aircraft operations, including ultra-light and helicopter landings and takeoffs will occur at the designated 88NV Black Rock City Airport landing strips and areas defined by airport management. All takeoffs and landings will occur only during the hours of operation of the airport as described in the Burning Man Operating Plan. All pilots that use the Black Rock City Airport must agree to and abide by the published airport rules and regulations;
(2) Only helicopters providing emergency medical services may land at the designated Emergency Medical Services helicopter pad or at other locations when required for medical incidents. The BLM authorized officer or his/her delegated representative may approve other helicopter landings and takeoffs when deemed necessary for the benefit of the law enforcement operation; and
(3) Landings or takeoffs of lighter-than-air craft previously approved by the BLM authorized officer.
(1) Possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage by the driver or operator of any motorized vehicle, whether or not the vehicle is in motion, is prohibited.
(2) Possession of alcohol by minors:
(i) The following are prohibited:
(A) Consumption or possession of any alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age on public lands; and
(B) Selling, offering to sell, or otherwise furnishing or supplying any alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age on public lands.
(3) Operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or dangerous drugs:
(i) Title 43 CFR 8341.1(f)(3) prohibits the operation of an off-road motor vehicle on public land while under the influence of alcohol, narcotics, or dangerous drugs.
(ii) In addition to the prohibition found at 43 CFR 8341.1(f)(3), it is prohibited for any person to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(A) The operator is under the combined influence of alcohol, a drug, or drugs to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation of that vehicle; or
(B) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
(C) It is unlawful for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access with an amount of a prohibited substance in his or her urine or blood that is equal to or greater than the following nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) Heroin metabolite:
(i)
(ii)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(iii) Tests:
(A) At the request or direction of any law enforcement officer authorized by the Department of the Interior to enforce this closure and restriction order, who has probable cause to believe that an operator of a motor vehicle has violated a provision of paragraph (i) or (ii) of this section, the operator shall submit to one or more tests of the blood, breath, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining blood alcohol and drug content.
(B) Refusal by an operator to submit to a test is prohibited and proof of refusal may be admissible in any related judicial proceeding.
(C) Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol and drugs shall be determined by and administered at the direction of an authorized law enforcement officer.
(D) Any test shall be conducted by using accepted scientific methods and equipment of proven accuracy and reliability operated by personnel certified in its use.
(iv) Presumptive levels:
(A) The results of chemical or other quantitative tests are intended to supplement the elements of probable cause used as the basis for the arrest of an operator charged with a violation of paragraph (i) of this section. If the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath at the time of testing is less than alcohol concentrations specified in paragraph (ii)(B) of this section, this fact does not give rise to any presumption that the operator is or is not under the influence of alcohol.
(B) The provisions of paragraph (iv)(A) of this section are not intended to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the
(4) Definitions:
(i)
(ii) Possession of an open container includes any open container that is physically possessed by the driver or operator or is adjacent to and reachable by that driver or operator. This includes, but is not limited, to containers in a cup holder or rack adjacent to the driver or operator, containers on a vehicle floor next to the driver or operator, and containers on a seat or console area next to a driver or operator.
(1) The possession of drug paraphernalia is prohibited.
(2)
(1) Disorderly conduct is prohibited.
(2)
(i) Engages in fighting or violent behavior;
(ii) Uses language, an utterance, or gesture or engages in a display or act that is physically threatening or menacing or done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace.
(iii) Obstructs, resists, or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer, or fails to follow their orders or directions.
(1) The public closure area is closed to any person who:
(i) Has been evicted from the event by the permit holder, whether or not the eviction was requested by the BLM;
(ii) Has been evicted from the event by the BLM;
(iii) Has been ordered by a law enforcement officer to leave the area of the permitted event.
(2) Any person evicted from the event forfeits all privileges to be present within the perimeter fence or anywhere else within the public closure area even if they possess a ticket to attend the event.
(1) Must comply with the following requirements:
(i) The operator of a motor vehicle must possess a valid driver's license.
(ii) Motor vehicles and trailers must possess evidence of valid registration, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the permitted event organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(iii) Motor vehicles must possess evidence of valid insurance, except for mutant vehicles or other vehicles registered with the permitted event organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(iv) Motor vehicles and trailers must not block a street used for vehicular travel or a pedestrian pathway.
(v) Motor vehicles must not exceed the posted or designated speed limits. Posted or designated speed limits also apply to motorized skateboards, electric assist bicycles, and Go-Peds with handlebars.
(vi) No person shall occupy a trailer while the motor vehicle is in transit upon a roadway, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the permitted event organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(vii) During night hours, from a half-hour after sunset to a half-hour before sunrise, motor vehicles, other than a motorcycle or golf cart—which require only one working headlamp, one working tail light, and one working break light—must be equipped with at least two working headlamps and at least two functioning tail lamps, except for mutant vehicles or other vehicles registered with the permitted event organizers and operated within the scope of that registration, so long as they are adequately lit according to Black Rock City LLC Department of Mutant Vehicle requirements.
(viii) Motor vehicles, other than a motorcycle or golf cart, must display a red, amber, or yellow light brake light visible to the rear in normal sunlight upon application of the brake, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the permitted event organizers and operated within the scope of that registration, so long as they are adequately lit according to Black Rock City LLC Department of Mutant Vehicle requirements.
(ix) Trailers pulled by motor vehicles must be equipped with at least two functioning tail lamps and at least two functioning brake lights.
(x) Motor vehicles must display an unobstructed rear license plate in a place and position to be clearly visible and must be maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible, except for mutant vehicles, or other vehicles registered with the permitted event organizers and operated within the scope of that registration.
(2) The public closure area is closed to motor vehicle use, except as provided below. Motor vehicles may be operated within the public closure area under the circumstances listed below:
(i) Participant arrival and departure on designated routes;
(ii) BLM, medical, law enforcement, and firefighting vehicles are authorized at all times;
(iii) Vehicles, mutant vehicles, or art cars operated by the permit holder's staff or contractors and service providers on behalf of the permit holder are authorized at all times. These vehicles must display evidence of event registration in such manner that it is visible to the rear of the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion;
(iv) Vehicles used by disabled drivers and displaying official State-disabled-driver license plates or placards; or mutant vehicles and art cars, or other vehicles registered with the permit holder must display evidence of registration at all times in such manner that it is visible to the rear of the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion;
(v) Participant drop-off of approved burnable material and wood to the Burn Garden/Wood Reclamation Stations (located on open playa at 3:00, 6:00, 9:00 Promenades and the Man base) from 10:00 a.m. Sunday through the end of day Tuesday, post event;
(vi) Passage through, without stopping, the public closure area on the west or east playa roads;
(vii) Support vehicles for art vehicles, mutant vehicles, and theme camps will be allowed to drive to and from fueling stations.
(3) Definitions:
(i) A motor vehicle is any device designed for and capable of travel over land and which is self-propelled by a motor, but does not include any vehicle operated on rails or any motorized wheelchair.
(ii) Motorized wheelchair means a self-propelled wheeled device, designed
(iii) “Trailer” means every vehicle without motive power designed to carry property or passengers wholly on its own structure and to be drawn by a motor vehicle, this includes camp trailers, pop-up trailers, 4′x7′ or larger flatbed trailers, enclosed cargo trailers, or RV style trailers.
The public closure area is closed to public camping with the following exception:
The permitted event's ticket holders who are camped in designated event areas provided by the permit holder and ticket holders who are camped in the authorized pilot camp and the permit holder's authorized staff, contractors, and BLM-authorized event management related camps are exempt from this closure.
The public closure area is closed to use by members of the public unless that person is traveling through, without stopping, the public closure area on the west or east playa roads; possesses a valid ticket to attend the event; is an employee or authorized volunteer with the BLM, a law enforcement officer, emergency medical service provider, fire protection provider, or another public agency employee working at the event and that individual is assigned to the event; is a person working at or attending the event on behalf of the permit holder; or is authorized by the permit holder to be onsite prior to the commencement of the event for the primary purpose of constructing, creating, designing or installing art, displays, buildings, facilities, or other items and structures in connection with the event; or is a commercial operation to provide services to the event organizers and/or participants authorized by the permit holder through a contract or agreement and authorized by BLM through a Special Recreation Permit.
(1) The use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) is prohibited, unless the operator is authorized through and complies with the Remote Control BRC (RCBRC) program and operates the UAS in accordance with Federal laws and regulations, specifically the operational limitations under the Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule (Part 107).
(2) Definition:
(i) Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(ii) UAS is the unmanned aircraft and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
(1) The possession and or use of handheld lasers is prohibited.
(2) Definition:
(i) A laser means any hand held laser beam device or demonstration laser product that emits a single point of light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye.
(1) The possession of any weapon is prohibited except weapons within motor vehicles passing, without stopping, through the public closure area on the west or east playa roads.
(2) The discharge of any weapon is prohibited.
(3) The prohibitions above shall not apply to county, State, tribal, and Federal law enforcement personnel who are working in their official capacity at the event. “Art projects” that include weapons and are sanctioned by the permit holder will be permitted after obtaining authorization from the BLM authorized officer.
(4) Definitions:
(i) Weapon means a firearm, compressed gas or spring powered pistol or rifle, bow and arrow, cross bow, blowgun, spear gun, hand-thrown spear, sling shot, irritant gas device, electric stunning or immobilization device, explosive device, any implement designed to expel a projectile, switch-blade knife, any blade which is greater than 10 inches in length from the tip of the blade to the edge of the hilt or finger guard nearest the blade (
(ii) Firearm means any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, or other device which is designed to, or may be readily converted to expel, a projectile by the ignition of a propellant.
(iii) Discharge means the expelling of a projectile from a weapon. Any person who violates the above rules and restrictions may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $100,000, imprisoned no more than 12 months or both, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571(b), 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced penalties provided by 18 U.S.C. 3571 and 3581. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Nevada law.
43 CFR 8364.1
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado State Office, Lakewood, Colorado, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Unless there are protests of this action, the plats described in this notice will be filed on July 28, 2017.
You may submit written protests to the BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado; (303) 239-3856;
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey. A statement of
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 14 South, Range 67 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on February 3, 2017.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and corrective dependent resurvey in Township 33 North, Range 7 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 14, 2017.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of sections 34 and 35 in Township 50 North, Range 8 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 20, 2017.
The monument for the corner of sections 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 4 South, Range 95 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was determined to be out of position by more than 200 feet, although it was correctly depicted on the official BLM plat of survey, Group No. 571, approved July 11, 1977. Based on discussions and direction by BLM Colorado Cadastral Survey, Wasatch Surveying Associates set a private monument with a cap marked accordingly at the point of the true section corner location determined by the double proportionate method, as depicted on the survey plat filed by Wasatch Surveying Associates, February 13, 2017, Reception Number 1042, with Garfield County, Colorado, and on February 21, 2017, Reception Number 314038, with Rio Blanco County, Colorado. The displaced BLM monument was stamped “Alternate Monument” and buried 12 inches below ground level at the erroneous location.
The plat, in two sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 4 in Township 10 South, Range 77 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on March 29, 2017.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM Mother Lode Field Office, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Western Regional Office, the United States Forest Service (USFS) Region 4 Intermountain Region, the USFS Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and the USFS Modoc National Forest, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this survey must file a written notice by July 28, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Jon Kehler Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825; 1-916-978-4310;
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey within 30 days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The surveys are:
43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey and remonumentation 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by July 28, 2017.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY957, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
Sonja Sparks, BLM Wyoming Cadastral Surveyor at 307-775-6222 or
The lands surveyed are: The plat representing the entire record of the remonumentation of certain corners, Township 23 North, Range 103 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 850, was accepted March 21, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the sub divisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 21, Township 23 North, Range 103 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 889, was accepted March 21, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and a portion of the sub divisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 19, Township 23 North, Range 103 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 948, was accepted March 21, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary and a portion of the sub divisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 32, Township 23 North, Range 117 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 947, was accepted March 21, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the sub divisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of section 11, Township 23 North, Range 118 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 947, was accepted March 21, 2017.
The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the sub divisional lines, and the survey of the subdivision of section 27, Township 24 North, Range 118 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, Group No. 947, was accepted March 21, 2017.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the Wyoming State Director. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the State Director during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plats and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $.13 per page of field notes.
43 U.S.C. Ch. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado State Office, Lakewood, Colorado, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Unless this action is protested, the plats described in this notice will be filed on July 28, 2017.
You may submit written protests to the BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado; (303) 239-3856;
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 36 North, Range 1 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on December 9, 2016.
The plat, in two sheets, incorporating the field notes of the metes-and-bounds survey in Township 8 South, Range 75 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on January 3, 2017.
The plat, in two sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 43 North, Range 4 West, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on February 7, 2017.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey, survey and remonumentation in Township 13 South, Range 68 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on February 14, 2017.
A person or party who wishes to protest any of the above surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, please be aware that your entire
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Official Filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plats of survey of the lands described in this notice in the BLM New Mexico State Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM Albuquerque District Office and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Cimarron Ranger District, are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest one of the surveys must file a written notice by July 28, 2017.
Written notices protesting a survey must be sent to the New Mexico State Director, BLM New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502.
Carlos Martinez, Supervisory Lands & Minerals Records Specialist, BLM New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502; telephone 505-954-2096, or
The lands surveyed are:
The plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey and survey, in Township 11 North, Range 6 East, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted February 6, 2017, for Group 1166 NM.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 33 South, Range 41 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, accepted February 8, 2017, for Group 39 KS.
A copy of the plat and related field notes will be placed in the open files. They will be available for public review in the BLM New Mexico State Office as a matter of information.
A person or party who wishes to protest against one of the above surveys must file a written notice within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the New Mexico State Director, BLM, at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey for the lands described in this notice 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by July 28, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Stanley G. French, Branch of Cadastral Survey, BLM, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, 83709-1657, 208-373-3981. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. French. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. French. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho, BLM. The protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest and contain all reasons and evidence in support of the protest. The protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will not be considered. A protest is considered filed on the date it is
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before May 27, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by July 13, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 27, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before June 3, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by July 13, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before June 3, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before May 20, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by July 13, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 20, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Summary of Commission practice relating to administrative protective orders.
Since February 1991, the U.S. International Trade Commission/(“Commission”) has published in the
Ron Traud, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-3088. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810.
General information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing its Web site (
Representatives of parties to investigations or other proceedings conducted under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Article 1904.13, and safeguard-related provisions such as section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, may enter into APOs that permit them, under strict conditions, to obtain access to BPI (title VII) and confidential business information (“CBI”) (safeguard-related provisions and section 337) of other parties or non-parties.
Since 1991, the Commission has regularly published a summary of its actions in response to violations of Commission APOs and rule violations.
As part of the effort to educate practitioners about the Commission's current APO practice, the Commission Secretary issued in March 2005 a fourth edition of
The current APO form for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, which was revised in March 2005, requires the applicant to swear that he or she will:
(1) Not divulge any of the BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation and not otherwise available to him or her, to any person other than—
(i) Personnel of the Commission concerned with the investigation,
(ii) The person or agency from whom the BPI was obtained,
(iii) A person whose application for disclosure of BPI under this APO has been granted by the Secretary, and
(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals and clerical staff, who (a) are employed or supervised by and under the direction and control of the authorized applicant or another authorized applicant in the same firm whose application has been granted; (b) have a need thereof in connection with the investigation; (c) are not involved in competitive decision making for an interested party which is a party to the investigation; and (d) have signed the acknowledgment for clerical personnel in the form attached hereto (the authorized applicant shall also sign such acknowledgment and will be deemed responsible for such persons' compliance with this APO);
(2) Use such BPI solely for the purposes of the above-captioned Commission investigation or for judicial or binational panel review of such Commission investigation;
(3) Not consult with any person not described in paragraph (1) concerning BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation without first having received the written consent of the Secretary and the party or the representative of the party from whom such BPI was obtained;
(4) Whenever materials
(5) Serve all materials containing BPI disclosed under this APO as directed by the Secretary and pursuant to section 207.7(f) of the Commission's rules;
(6) Transmit each document containing BPI disclosed under this APO:
(i) With a cover sheet identifying the document as containing BPI,
(ii) with all BPI enclosed in brackets and each page warning that the document contains BPI,
(iii) if the document is to be filed by a deadline, with each page marked “Bracketing of BPI not final for one business day after date of filing,” and
(iv) if by mail, within two envelopes, the inner one sealed and marked “Business Proprietary Information—To be opened only by [name of recipient]”, and the outer one sealed and not marked as containing BPI;
(7) Comply with the provision of this APO and section 207.7 of the Commission's rules;
(8) Make true and accurate representations in the authorized applicant's application and promptly notify the Secretary of any changes that occur after the submission of the application and that affect the representations made in the application (
(9) Report promptly and confirm in writing to the Secretary any possible breach of this APO; and
(10) Acknowledge that breach of this APO may subject the authorized
The APO form for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations also provides for the return or destruction of the BPI obtained under the APO on the order of the Secretary, at the conclusion of the investigation, or at the completion of Judicial Review. The BPI disclosed to an authorized applicant under an APO during the preliminary phase of the investigation generally may remain in the applicant's possession during the final phase of the investigation.
The APO further provides that breach of an APO may subject an applicant to:
(1) Disbarment from practice in any capacity before the Commission along with such person's partners, associates, employer, and employees, for up to seven years following publication of a determination that the order has been breached;
(2) Referral to the United States Attorney;
(3) In the case of an attorney, accountant, or other professional, referral to the ethics panel of the appropriate professional association;
(4) Such other administrative sanctions as the Commission determines to be appropriate, including public release of, or striking from the record any information or briefs submitted by, or on behalf of, such person or the party he represents; denial of further access to business proprietary information in the current or any future investigations before the Commission, and issuance of a public or private letter of reprimand; and
(5) Such other actions, including but not limited to, a warning letter, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.
APOs in safeguard investigations contain similar though not identical provisions.
The APOs in section 337 investigations differ from those in title VII investigations as there is no set form and provisions may differ depending on the investigation and the presiding administrative law judge. However, in practice, the provisions are often quite similar. Any person seeking access to CBI during a section 337 investigation including outside counsel for parties to the investigation, secretarial and support personnel assisting such counsel, and technical experts and their staff who are employed for the purposes of the investigation is required to read the APO, agree to its terms by letter filed with the Secretary of the Commission indicating that he or she agrees to be bound by the terms of the Order, agree not to reveal CBI to anyone other than another person permitted access by the Order, and agree to utilize the CBI solely for the purposes of that investigation.
In general, an APO in a section 337 investigation will define what kind of information is CBI and direct how CBI is to be designated and protected. The APO will state what persons will have access to the CBI and which of those persons must sign onto the APO. The APO will provide instructions on how CBI is to be maintained and protected by labeling documents and filing transcripts under seal. It will provide protections for the suppliers of CBI by notifying them of a Freedom of Information Act request for the CBI and providing a procedure for the supplier to take action to prevent the release of the information. There are provisions for disputing the designation of CBI and a procedure for resolving such disputes. Under the APO, suppliers of CBI are given the opportunity to object to the release of the CBI to a proposed expert. The APO requires a person who discloses CBI, other than in a manner authorized by the APO, to provide all pertinent facts to the supplier of the CBI and to the administrative law judge and to make every effort to prevent further disclosure. The APO requires all parties to the APO to either return to the suppliers or destroy the originals and all copies of the CBI obtained during the investigation.
The Commission's regulations provide for certain sanctions to be imposed if the APO is violated by a person subject to its restrictions. The names of the persons being investigated for violating an APO are kept confidential unless the sanction imposed is a public letter of reprimand. 19 CFR 210.34(c)(1). The possible sanctions are:
(1) An official reprimand by the Commission.
(2) Disqualification from or limitation of further participation in a pending investigation.
(3) Temporary or permanent disqualification from practicing in any capacity before the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15(a).
(4) Referral of the facts underlying the violation to the appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction in which the individual is licensed to practice.
(5) Making adverse inferences and rulings against a party involved in the violation of the APO or such other action that may be appropriate. 19 CFR 210.34(c)(3).
Commission employees are not signatories to the Commission's APOs and do not obtain access to BPI or CBI through APO procedures. Consequently, they are not subject to the requirements of the APO with respect to the handling of CBI and BPI. However, Commission employees are subject to strict statutory and regulatory constraints concerning BPI and CBI, and face potentially severe penalties for noncompliance.
Upon finding evidence of an APO breach or receiving information that there is a reason to believe one has occurred, the Commission Secretary notifies relevant offices in the agency that an APO breach investigation has commenced and that an APO breach investigation file has been opened. Upon receiving notification from the Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) prepares a letter of inquiry to be sent to the possible breacher over the Secretary's signature to ascertain the facts and obtain the possible breacher's views on whether a breach has occurred.
Sanctions for APO violations serve three basic interests: (a) Preserving the
The Commission has worked to develop consistent jurisprudence, not only in determining whether a breach has occurred, but also in selecting an appropriate response. In determining the appropriate response, the Commission generally considers mitigating factors such as the unintentional nature of the breach, the lack of prior breaches committed by the breaching party, the corrective measures taken by the breaching party, and the promptness with which the breaching party reported the violation to the Commission. The Commission also considers aggravating circumstances, especially whether persons not under the APO actually read the BPI/CBI. The Commission considers whether there have been prior breaches by the same person or persons in other investigations and multiple breaches by the same person or persons in the same investigation.
The Commission's rules permit an economist or consultant to obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO in a title VII or safeguard investigation if the economist or consultant is under the direction and control of an attorney under the APO, or if the economist or consultant appears regularly before the Commission and represents an interested party who is a party to the investigation. 19 CFR 207.7(a)(3)(B) and (C); 19 CFR 206.17(a)(3)(B) and (C). Economists and consultants who obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO under the direction and control of an attorney nonetheless remain individually responsible for complying with the APO. In appropriate circumstances, for example, an economist under the direction and control of an attorney may be held responsible for a breach of the APO by failing to redact APO information from a document that is subsequently filed with the Commission and served as a public document. This is so even though the attorney exercising direction or control over the economist or consultant may also be held responsible for the breach of the APO. In section 337 investigations, technical experts and their staff who are employed for the purposes of the investigation are required to sign onto the APO and agree to comply with its provisions.
The records of Commission investigations of alleged APO breaches in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, section 337 investigations, and safeguard investigations are not publicly available and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
The two types of breaches most frequently investigated by the Commission involve the APO's prohibition on the dissemination of BPI or CBI to unauthorized persons and the APO's requirement that the materials received under the APO be returned or destroyed and that a certificate be filed indicating which action was taken after the termination of the investigation or any subsequent appeals of the Commission's determination. The dissemination of BPI/CBI usually occurs as the result of failure to delete BPI/CBI from public versions of documents filed with the Commission or transmission of proprietary versions of documents to unauthorized recipients. Other breaches have included the failure to bracket properly BPI/CBI in proprietary documents filed with the Commission, the failure to report immediately known violations of an APO, and the failure to adequately supervise non-lawyers in the handling of BPI/CBI.
Occasionally, the Commission conducts APOB investigations that involve members of a law firm or consultants working with a firm who were granted access to APO materials by the firm although they were not APO signatories. In many of these cases, the firm and the person using the BPI/CBI mistakenly believed an APO application had been filed for that person. The Commission determined in all of these cases that the person who was a non-signatory, and therefore did not agree to be bound by the APO, could not be found to have breached the APO. Action could be taken against these persons, however, under Commission rule 201.15 (19 CFR 201.15) for good cause shown. In all cases in which action was taken, the Commission decided that the non-signatory was a person who appeared regularly before the Commission and was aware of the requirements and limitations related to APO access and should have verified his or her APO status before obtaining access to and using the BPI/CBI. The Commission notes that section 201.15 may also be available to issue sanctions to attorneys or agents in different factual circumstances in which they did not technically breach the APO, but when their actions or inactions did not demonstrate diligent care of the APO materials even though they appeared regularly before the Commission and were aware of the importance the Commission placed on the care of APO materials.
Counsel participating in Commission investigations have reported to the Commission potential breaches involving the electronic transmission of public versions of documents. In these cases, the document transmitted appears to be a public document with BPI or CBI omitted from brackets. However, the confidential information is actually retrievable by manipulating codes in software. The Commission has found that the electronic transmission of a public document containing BPI or CBI in a recoverable form was a breach of the APO.
Counsel have been cautioned to be certain that each authorized applicant files within 60 days of the completion of an import injury investigation or at the conclusion of judicial or binational review of the Commission's determination a certificate that to his or her knowledge and belief all copies of BPI/CBI have been returned or destroyed and no copies of such material have been made available to any person to whom disclosure was not specifically authorized. This requirement applies to each attorney, consultant, or expert in a firm who has been granted access to BPI/CBI. One firm-wide certificate is insufficient.
Attorneys who are signatories to the APO representing clients in a section 337 investigation should inform the administrative law judge and the Commission's secretary if there are any changes to the information that was provided in the application for access to the CBI. This is similar to the requirement to update an applicant's information in title VII investigations.
In addition, attorneys who are signatories to the APO representing clients in a section 337 investigation should send a notice to the Commission if they stop participating in the investigation or the subsequent appeal of the Commission's determination. The notice should inform the Commission about the disposition of CBI obtained under the APO that was in their possession or they could be held responsible for any failure of their former firm to return or destroy the CBI in an appropriate manner.
Five days after the brief was filed with the Commission, an attorney in the law firm, who was subject to the APO, discovered the breach and brought it to the attention of another attorney who was also subject to the APO. That attorney immediately telephoned the Commission and the trade publication to ask that the brief be removed from public view. The executive assistant then refiled a corrected version of the brief with the Commission and emailed the corrected version to the trade publication. At the same time, the lead attorney emailed each of his clients asking them to delete his previous email, and subsequently asked them to execute a certification that all copies of the brief had been destroyed and that no BPI had been viewed. Less than a week later, the lead attorney filed a letter with the Commission detailing the circumstances of the possible APO breach and the remedial steps taken.
The Commission determined to sanction the lead attorney, the partner, and the executive assistant, by issuing private letters of reprimand. The Commission considered the mitigating factors that the breach was unintentional, no employee of the law firm in question has been found to have breached an APO in the past two years, the law firm took immediate corrective measures upon learning of the potential breach, and immediately reported the potential breach to the Commission. Additionally, the law firm has adopted new APO procedures intended to prevent the recurrence of a similar breach in the future. The Commission also considered the aggravating factors that BPI may have been viewed by unauthorized persons, as the document containing retrievable BPI was available to unauthorized persons for five days on EDIS and for up to two days on the trade publication's Web site, and was emailed or forwarded to 37 clients and witnesses, none of whom were on the APO.
These materials were made available to and were accessed by persons not subject to the APO in the earlier investigation. Access by non-signatories of the APO was confirmed by the audit trail for EDIS. In addition, the CBI was available on the PTO's public record for a short period of time.
The Commission determined to sanction the two attorneys who breached the APO by issuing private letters of reprimand. The Commission considered the mitigating factors that the breach was unintentional, the two attorneys had not breached an APO within the last two years, the breach was properly reported to the Commission, and detailed protocols for handling CBI have since been implemented at the firm where the breach originated. The two attorneys also kept the Commission promptly informed of the status of their continuing efforts to mitigate the breach, including expunging the documents containing CBI that were released to the PTO, and securing confirmation from those who received the documents that their copies had been destroyed.
The Commission also considered the significant aggravating circumstances that the CBI was seen by non-signatories to the APO, and the breaches resulted in two disclosures, through EDIS and the PTO. Additionally, the law firm where the breaches originated did not discover the breaches, but rather was informed by an attorney for a respondent in the earlier section 337 investigation about the CBI labeled as public attached to the complaint in the new investigation.
The Commission determined to issue the attorney a private letter of reprimand for breaching the APO. The Commission considered the mitigating factors that the breach was unintentional and that it was discovered by the breaching party. In addition, the attorney promptly notified opposing counsel, the Commission, and the Court regarding the breach and immediately undertook steps to remedy the breach. Finally, the Commission had not found the attorney to be in breach of a Commission APO within the previous two years. The Commission also considered the aggravating factor that the CBI in question was publicly available on the Court's electronic filing system for an extended period of time and therefore was presumably viewed by unauthorized persons.
The Commission determined that the supervisory attorneys responsible for this section 337 investigation in the two firms violated the APO by failing to adequately supervise access to and the handling of CBI by firm attorneys and outside consultants, thereby contributing to or directly disclosing CBI to unauthorized persons. The Commission issued warning letters to the supervisory attorneys in both firms.
The first of the two law firms also self-reported that it had filed a public brief with an attachment containing CBI with the CAFC. This APO violation was initially given a separate APOB investigation number and subsequently combined with the other breaches for the purposes of investigation. The brief was not made available to the public and was replaced with a version in which the CBI was removed. This brief had been transmitted to four clients of the firm who were not subject to the APO. They were contacted and were
The Commission issued a private letter of reprimand to the law firm. The Commission considered certain mitigating circumstances. These included that the breaches were unintentional, the breaching parties had no prior breaches within the previous two years, the breaching parties took corrective measures to prevent a breach in the future, and the breaches were promptly self-reported to the Commission. With regard to the private letter of reprimand sent to the law firm, the Commission considered the aggravating circumstance that the firm was involved in two violations of the APO issued in the same section 337 investigation. The Commission found that the firm failed to adequately control access to CBI in the investigation and the appeal of the investigation to the CAFC.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-582 and 731-TA-1377 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of ripe olives from Spain, provided for in subheadings 2005.70.02, 2005.70.04, 2005.70.06, 2005.70.08, 2005.70.12, 2005.70.16, 2005.70.18, 2005.70.23, 2005.70.25, 2005.70.50, 2005.70.60, 2005.70.70, 2005.70.75, 2005.70.91, 2005.70.93, and 2005.70.97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of Spain. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by August 7, 2017. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by August 14, 2017.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Notice is hereby given that, on May 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 24, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 30, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Dialogic Corporation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and Openet Telecom Ltd., Dublin, Ireland, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open Platform for NFV Project intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 17, 2014, Open Platform for NFV Project filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 9, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 30, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and fd.io intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 4, 2016, fd.io filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 6, 2017. A notice was published in the
On February 23, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to John Warren Cox, M.D. (Registrant), of West Point, Mississippi. GX 2. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BC6115047, on the ground that he does not have authority to handle controlled substances in Mississippi, the State in which he is registered with the Agency.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is registered with the DEA as a practitioner authorized to handle controlled substances in schedules II through V under DEA registration BC6115047, at the registered address of 187 Medical Center Drive, West Point, Mississippi.
As to the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on October 18, 2016, Registrant “voluntarily surrendered [his] Mississippi medical license and agreed to never again seek to be licensed in the State of Mississippi.”
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations, or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option.
On February 24, 2017, a Diversion Investigator from the Jackson, Mississippi District Office personally served the Show Cause Order on Registrant at his residence in West Point, Mississippi. GX 4 (Declaration of Diversion Investigator).
On May 5, 2017, the Government forwarded its Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA) and an evidentiary record to my Office. Therein, the Government represents that Registrant “has not filed a request for a hearing or a written statement, and more than 30 days ha[ve] now passed since he was served.” RFAA, at 1-2.
Based on the Government's representation that more than 30 days have now passed since the date of service of the Show Cause Order and that Registrant has not submitted a request for a hearing or a written statement, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Final Order based on relevant evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government.
Registrant is the holder of DEA Registration No. BC6115047, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 187 Medical Center Drive, West Point, Mississippi. GX 1 (Certification of Registration History). His registration does not expire until August 31, 2019.
On October 18, 2016, Registrant voluntarily surrendered his license to practice medicine in the State of Mississippi, and “agree[d] to never seek application for a future license to practice medicine in the State of Mississippi.” GX 3, at 2 (Surrender of Medical License). The agreement to voluntarily surrender his license followed an investigation by the Investigative Division of the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure, which “ha[d] in its possession evidence which, if produced during the course of an evidentiary hearing, would show [that Registrant's] continued practice constitutes a threat to the public health and safety due to his impairment.”
A printout from the Mississippi Board's Physician Profile System, dated May 5, 2017, shows that Registrant's license to practice medicine “expired”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of Title 21, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, with respect to a practitioner, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine.
Because Registrant is no longer currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Mississippi, the State in which he is registered with the Agency, I will therefore order that his registration be revoked.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. BC6115047, issued to John Warren Cox, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further order that any pending application of John Warren Cox, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective July 28, 2017.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 28, 2017.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Grant of individual exemptions.
This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). This notice includes the following: 2017-01, Rosetree & Company 401(k) Plan and Trust, D-11845; and 2017-02, Aon Pension Plan, D-11880.
A notice was published in the
The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemption is being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor.
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011)
(a) The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan.
The sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975(c)(1)(B) of the Code shall not apply to the guarantee (the Guarantee) by Richard Rosenbaum (Mr. Rosenbaum), the Plan trustee, a disqualified person with respect to the Plan, of: (1) A loan (the Loan) made by the Great Lakes Credit Union (GLCU), an unrelated third party lender, to Kurtson Realty, LLC (Kurtson), a real estate company that is wholly owned by the Plan;
(a) The Loan is made for purposes of the Plan acquiring and rehabilitating investment property from an unrelated third party through Kurtson;
(b) The Loan is made on commercially reasonable terms;
(c) The debt service and value to loan ratio for the Loan, and for any future Loan, are based primarily on the characteristics of the property serving as collateral for such Loan (the Collateral Property);
(d) The Lender and the Loan servicer (the Loan Servicer) are unrelated to Mr. Rosenbaum and the Plan;
(e) The Lender has a pre-existing Loan service arrangement with the Loan Servicer, and maintains this relationship for the duration of the Loan;
(f) Mr. Rosenbaum does not receive any compensation or derive any personal benefit from the Collateral Property;
(g) For the duration of the Loan or any future Loan, the Collateral Property is not used by or leased to: (1) Any other disqualified persons with respect to the Plan; (2) Rosetreee or any affiliate of Rosetree; or (3) any person or entity in which Mr. Rosenbaum may have an interest that would affect his best judgment as a Plan fiduciary;
(h) The Guarantee is a condition that is: (1) Customarily required in similar transactions between Kurtson and the Lender, and is not unique to the Loan or to the specific parties to the Loan; and (2) solely due to a regulatory requirement of the National Credit Union Administration that is imposed upon credit unions, including GLCU;
(i) If the Plan defaults on a Loan, Mr. Rosenbaum pays the balance of such Loan, and has no recourse against the Plan for repayment;
(j) No interest or any fee is charged to Kurtson or the Plan in connection with the Guarantee; and
(k) The Guarantee is not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding in which Mr. Rosenbaum causes the assets of the Plan to be used in a manner that is designed to benefit himself or any person who has an interest which would affect the exercise of Mr. Rosenbaum's best judgment as a fiduciary of the Plan.
Because Mr. Rosenbaum is the sole participant and beneficiary of the Plan, the Department determined that there was no need to distribute, to interested persons, the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice), which was published in the
During the comment period, the Department received no comments from interested persons. Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file (Exemption Application No. D-11845) and all supplemental submissions received by the Department are available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice cited above.
Ms. Anna Mpras Vaughan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act (or ERISA) and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A),(D), and (E) of the Code,
(a) A qualified independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary), as defined in Section IV(c), negotiates the terms and conditions of the Contribution, and approves the Contribution as being in the interest of the Plan;
(b) The Partnership Interest is contributed to the Plan by Aon at its current fair market value, as determined by the Independent Fiduciary, at the time of the Contribution;
(c) On a date preceding the Contribution, Aon made a cash contribution to the Plan of $7.5 million (the Additional Cash Contribution);
(d) The Plan does not have any obligation to make future payments with respect to the Partnership Interest;
(e) Aon contributes, on behalf of the Plan, cash amounts that are equal to the remaining capital calls that are requested by the general partner (the General Partner) of the Fund with respect to the Partnership Interest;
(f) The Plan does not pay any fees, commissions, costs or other expenses in connection with the either the Contribution or the Additional Cash Contribution, except for fees that are paid by the Plan to the Independent Fiduciary; and
(g) The terms and conditions of the Contribution and the Additional Cash Contribution are no less favorable to the Plan than those obtainable under similar circumstances when negotiated at arm's-length with unrelated third parties.
(a) The Independent Fiduciary represents the interests of the Plan for all purposes with respect to the Contribution and the Additional Cash Contribution;
(b) The Independent Fiduciary:
(1) Reviews, negotiates (if applicable), and approves the terms and conditions of the Contribution and the Additional Cash Contribution, as evidenced in the Contribution Agreement;
(2) Determines, in its sole discretion, that the reported value of the Partnership, as calculated by the General Partner, reflects the fair market value of the Partnership Interest;
(3) Determines, at the time of the Contribution, that the terms of such transaction are no less favorable to the Plan than the terms negotiated at arm's-length under similar circumstances between unrelated third parties;
(4) Ensures the Plan incurs no fees, costs or other charges (other than the fees and expenses of the Independent Fiduciary) as a result of the Contribution and the Additional Cash Contribution;
(5) Acknowledges that the Partnership Interest may not be sold, assigned, transferred or otherwise disposed of without the prior written consent of the General Partner of the Fund, which must be given at least 30 days prior to such transfer;
(6) Enforces the Plan's rights and interests with respect to the terms the Contribution and the Additional Cash Contribution; and
(7) Takes all steps that are necessary and proper to protect the Plan under the terms of the Contribution Agreement.
(a) The term “Aon” means Aon Corporation, and any of its affiliates.
(b) The term “affiliate” means:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;
(2) Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person; or
(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.
(c) The term “Independent Fiduciary” means a fiduciary with respect to the Plan that is independent of or unrelated to Aon, and has the appropriate training, experience, and facilities to act on behalf of the Plan regarding the proposed transactions in accordance with the fiduciary duties and responsibilities prescribed by the Act (including, if necessary, the
In the notice of proposed exemption (the Notice), the Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments within 44 calendar days of the publication, on April 14, 2017, of the Notice in the
With respect to the comments received from the Plan participants, the first commenter thought the Contribution would “undermine the soundness of the pension plan.” The second commenter thought the Contribution would “jeopardize pension payments.” The third commenter was concerned that the exemption was contrary to the intent of ERISA in that it would not “protect pension funds.” Each commenter's concerns were allayed following a discussion with a Department representative, and the comments were withdrawn.
Evercore informed the Department that its parent, Evercore Partners, had entered into an agreement to sell Evercore's independent fiduciary business to the Newport Group, and that the transaction would close by the end of the third quarter of 2017. Evercore also informed the Department that the Fund currently owns a majority interest in the Newport Group. Evercore represents it had no prior knowledge of the contemplated sale at the time its initial Independent Fiduciary Report was submitted to the Department.
On June 16, 2017, Brock Fiduciary Services LLC of New York, New York was appointed as the new Independent Fiduciary for the Plan. The Department has revised the definition of the term “Independent Fiduciary” to read as follows:
(c) The term “Independent Fiduciary” means a fiduciary with respect to the Plan that is independent of or unrelated to Aon, and has the appropriate training, experience, and facilities to act on behalf of the Plan regarding the proposed transactions in accordance with the fiduciary duties and responsibilities prescribed by the Act (including, if necessary, the responsibility to seek the counsel of knowledgeable advisors to assist in its compliance with the Act). The Independent Fiduciary will not be deemed to be independent of and unrelated to Aon if: (1) Such Independent Fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by or is under common control, with Aon; (2) such Independent Fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration in connection with any transaction described in this exemption other than for acting as Independent Fiduciary in connection with the transactions described herein, provided that the amount or payment of such compensation is not contingent upon, or in any way affected by, the Independent Fiduciary's ultimate decision; and (3) the annual gross revenue received by the Independent Fiduciary from Aon, during any year of its engagement, does not exceed three percent (3%) of such Independent Fiduciary's annual gross revenue from all sources (for federal income tax purposes) for its prior tax year.
Aon requests that the effective date of the exemption be the date the Contribution occurs, which Aon expects will be July 1, 2017. The Department has made the requested revision.
After giving full consideration to the entire record, the Department has decided to grant the exemption. The complete application file (Exemption Application No. D-11880), all supplemental submissions, and the written comments received by the Department are available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to the Notice at 82 FR 18013, April 14, 2017.
Mrs. Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) These exemptions are supplemental to and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of these exemptions is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of proposed exemptions.
This document contains notices of pendency before the Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). This notice includes the following proposed exemptions: D-11895, The Grossberg, Yochelson, Fox & Beyda LLP Profit Sharing Plan; L-11867, Toledo Electrical Joint Apprenticeship & Training Fund; and D-11929 and D-11930, Health Management Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan (the HMA Plan) and The Mooresville Retirement Savings Plan (the Mooresville Plan).
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the date of publication of this
Comments and requests for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2) the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing. All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. __, stated in each Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via email or FAX. Any such comments or requests should be sent either by email to:
Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the
The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).
The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Code,
1. The Plan Sponsor is a commercial real estate law firm located in Washington, DC. Founded in 1930, the Plan Sponsor is organized as a general partnership. The Plan Sponsor's fourteen attorneys provide legal services in commercial real estate law through their focus on the acquisition, sale, financing, leasing and taxation of real property. In addition, the Plan Sponsor advises its clients on corporate and general business law, tax, estate planning and other areas of the law. The current Owners of the Plan Sponsor are: C. Richard Beyda, Lawrence A. Miller, Gerald P. Grossberg, Linton W. Hengerer, Richard F. Levin, Brett D. Orlove, and Michael D. Ravitch.
2. The Plan is a defined contribution plan having 24 participants as of December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2015, the Plan had total assets of approximately $13,540,000.
The Plan is comprised of a salary reduction source (401(k)), a non-elective source (profit sharing), and a money purchase pension source (resulting from a prior plan merger). Messrs. Beyda, Miller, Grossberg, Levin, and Orlove are the Plan trustees (the Trustees), and in
3. Participants direct the investments in the employee-funded, salary reduction portion of the Plan into their respective individual accounts. TD Ameritrade serves as the custodian of the participant-directed accounts under a 401(k) platform. As of December 31, 2015, the employee-funded portion of the Plan held total assets of $2,502,000.
4. The Trustees direct the investments in the employer-funded, non-elective and money purchase portions of the Plan. As of December 31, 2015, the assets in the employer-funded portion of the profit sharing and the former money purchase plan assets) totaled $11,038,000. The assets in the employer-funded portion of the Plan consist of $10,461,000 in cash, and the LLC Interest described herein, with a book value of $577,000. Further, the assets of the employer-funded portion of the Plan are allocated $6,207,000 to near-retiring partners of the Plan Sponsor, and $4,831,000 to other Plan participants.
5. On October 19, 2000, the Trustees acquired a 2.59067% membership interest in the LLC for the employer-funded portion of the Plan. The business purpose of the LLC is to own, develop and operate a 30% tenants-in-common interest initially in a multifamily residential apartment project in McLean, Virginia, known as “The Commons of McLean” (The Commons). The LLC has a termination date of December 31, 2090, unless terminated earlier under the terms of the Articles of Organization of Common Investors, LLC (the Articles of Organization).
6. The Plan paid $250,000, in cash, for the LLC Interest. At the time of the investment, the Plan was one of approximately fifty investors in the LLC (the LLC Members). The remaining 97.40933% LLC Interests were held by individuals, non-retirement plans and individual retirement accounts. According to the Applicant, none of the other LLC Members were or are currently affiliated with or related to the Plan or the Plan Sponsor.
7. Investments from all LLC Members totaled $9,850,000. During 2000, the LLC used the funds to complete its purchase of The Commons from an unrelated party. Also to complete the purchase, the LLC borrowed $13,690,500 from an unrelated commercial lender.
8. During 2001, additional investors (unrelated to the Plan) were admitted to the LLC as LLC Members. As a result, the Plan's investment became diluted and was re-calculated by the Manager at 1.903553% of the LLC.
9. Since its inception, the LLC has engaged in multiple real estate transactions, which have included selling The Commons, and acquiring various commercial and residential buildings in Washington, DC and Northern Virginia. Through 2016, the LLC has distributed $256,535.08 to the Plan.
10. Pursuant to the LLC's Articles of Organization, a Member “may not transfer, assign or encumber all or any part of his Membership Interest in the [LLC] without first obtaining the written consent of the Manager.” The Trustees sought approval from the Manager to sell the LLC interest to an unrelated party. In a letter to the Trustees, dated December 22, 2015, the Manager refused to allow such sale, and also refused to purchase the LLC Interest. According to the Applicant, as a compromise, the Manager agreed to allow a sale of the LLC Interest by the Plan to an entity comprised of the Plan Sponsor's Owners.
11. To improve the Plan's liquidity, the Trustees have decided to sell the LLC interest to GYFB-Commons, an entity, that will be formed and funded by the Owners as a limited liability company under the laws of the District of Columbia, when the exemption is granted. The Applicant represents that three Owners of the Plan Sponsor, Messrs. Beyda, Miller, Grossberg, anticipate retiring in the near future. According to the Applicant, following the payouts to the “near-retiring” Owners, the remaining pooled investments ($4,772,000) will consist of $4,254,000 (89%) of cash securities, and the LLC Interest.
12. The proposed Sale will be a one-time transaction for cash, whereby the Plan receive no less than the fair market value of the LLC Interest as determined by qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) in an updated appraisal on the date of the Sale. Further, the terms and conditions of the Sale are no less favorable to the Plan than the terms the Plan would receive under similar circumstances in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated third party. Finally, the Plan will not pay any commissions, fees, or other costs or expenses associated with the Sale, including the fees of the Independent Appraiser and the costs of obtaining the exemption, if granted.
13. Section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act states that a fiduciary with respect to a plan shall not cause a plan to engage in a transaction if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect sale or exchange of any property between the Plan and a party in interest, or a transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of, a party in interest, of any assets of the Plan.
GYFB-Commons is a party in interest with respect to the Plan under section 3(14)(G) of the Act because once it is formed, it will be an entity that is more than 50% owned by the Owners of the Plan Sponsor. In addition, as Trustees of the Plan, Messrs. Beyda, Miller, Grossberg, Levin and Orlove are parties in interest with respect to the Plan under section 3(14)(A) of the Act because they are fiduciaries. Therefore, in the absence of a statutory or an administrative exemption, the Sale by the Plan of the LLC Interest to GYFB-Commons would violate section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act.
Section 406(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a plan fiduciary from dealing with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own account. Moreover, section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a plan fiduciary, in his or her individual or in any other capacity, from acting in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party whose interests are adverse to the interests of the plan or the interests of its participants or beneficiaries.
The Sale by the Plan of the LLC Interest to GYFB-Commons, would violate section 406(b)(1) of the Act because the Trustees, as fiduciaries, would be causing the Plan to sell the LLC Interest to themselves. In addition, the Sale would violate section 406(b)(2) of the Act because the Trustees, in approving the Sale, would be acting on both sides of the transaction.
14. In an engagement letter dated August 25, 2015, the Trustees retained Berlin, Ramos & Company, P.A. of Rockville, Maryland (the Appraiser), to determine the fair market value of the LLC Interest. Joseph K. Speicher, a principal and shareholder of the Appraiser, was responsible for appraising the LLC Interest, and issuing an appraisal report (the Appraisal Report) to the Trustees. Mr. Speicher represents that he is a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Valuation Analyst. In addition, Mr. Speicher represents that he, and the Appraiser, do not have a relationship with any party in interest involved in the proposed transaction that would allow
In an Appraisal Report dated May 25, 2016, Mr. Speicher determined the fair market value of LLC Interest as of September 15, 2015. Mr. Speicher limited his calculation to the “Guideline Company Method” under the Market Approach. In accordance with the Guideline Company Method, sales and other statistics of similar investments and sales transactions are analyzed to determine pricing multiples to be applied to the Company. Mr. Speicher represented that the multiple derived from the comparable company data is applied to the Net Asset Value of the LLC. Because each of the properties associated with the LLC was recently acquired, Mr. Speicher also stated that the fair market values of the properties and the balance of associated liabilities could be readily determined.
As of September 30, 2015, Mr. Speicher determined that the net asset values of the LLC and the LLC Interest were $46,649,682 and $888,001, respectively. After applying a Price/Net Asset Value percentage of 73% to the net asset value of the LLC Interest, Mr. Speicher decided that the value of the Plan's non-controlling, marketable interest in the LLC was $648,000. Mr. Speicher next concluded that the $648,000 estimated value of the LLC Interest should be reduced by 20% (or $129,000) due to lack of marketability, and he ultimately placed the fair market value of the LLC Interest at $518,400, as of September 30, 2015. Based on Mr. Speicher's valuation, the LLC Interest would represent approximately 4% of the Plan's assets.
In an addendum to the Appraisal Report dated November 30, 2016, Mr. Speicher concluded that there had been no material change in the value of the LLC Interest since September 30, 2015. He will update the Appraisal Report on the date of the Sale, and will provide the updated Appraisal Report to the Department, where it will be included in, and available, as part of the record developed under D-11895.
14. The Applicant represents that the proposed transaction is administratively feasible because it is a one-time, all cash transaction. In addition, no borrowing or payment terms are necessary, and the Manager of the LLC (who has sole authority to approve or deny such a transaction) has approved the proposed purchase.
The Applicant represents that the proposed transaction is in the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries because the Sale will: (a) Reduce the Plan's future administrative costs associated with its owning the LLC Interest; (b) allow the Plan to more completely diversify its investments, as appropriate; and (c) not require the Plan to pay any commissions, costs, or other expenses in connection with the proposed transaction. The Applicant also represents that the proposed transaction is protective of the rights of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries because the Sale will be for no less than the current fair market value of the LLC Interest, as determined by a qualified independent appraiser.
15. Given the conditions described below, the Department has tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicant satisfies the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act.
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act, and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Code,
(a) The Sale of the LLC Interest is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) The Sale price for the LLC Interest is the greater of: $518,400; or the fair market value of the LLC Interest as determined by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) in an updated appraisal on the date of the Sale. The updated appraisal must be submitted to the Department within 30 days of the Sale and will be included as part of the record developed under D-11895;
(c) The terms and conditions of the Sale are no less favorable to the Plan than the terms the Plan would receive under similar circumstances in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated third party; and
(d) The Plan pays no commissions, fees, or other costs or expenses associated with the Sale, including the fees of the Independent Appraiser and the costs of obtaining the exemption, if granted.
The Applicant will provide notice of the proposed exemption to all interested persons by either hand delivery (active participants) or via U.S. mail, certified return receipt (inactive participants and/or beneficiaries) within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice of proposed exemption in the
All comments will be made available to the public.
Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8567. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and in accordance with the
1. The Training Plan was established in November 1992 pursuant to a trust agreement (the Trust Agreement) entered into between the Toledo Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (the Contractors Association)
The Training Plan provides training programs in electrical, rigging and other electrical construction skills to members of the Union. The Training Plan currently carries out its training functions in a 32,000 square foot training facility located at 803 Lime City Road, Rossford, Ohio (the Existing Training Facility).
The Training Plan is jointly administered by a board of trustees (the Trustees), consisting of equal representation from Employer Trustees that are affiliated with the Contract Association (the Employer Trustees) and Union Trustees that are affiliated with the Union (the Union Trustees). Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the Trustees have the discretionary authority to manage, control and invest the assets of the Training Plan. As of December 31, 2015, the Training Plan covered 1,179 participants and had approximately $6,765,000 in total assets, which included approximately $3,760,000 in cash and cash equivalents and $3,005,000 in other assets, such as property, equipment and deposits.
2. The Building Corporation is a non-profit corporation, wholly-owned by the Union. The Building Corporation was formed to hold title to real property and collect and hold income on behalf of the Union. The Building Corporation is managed by an eleven member board of trustees, which is comprised of officers of the Building Corporation and the Union.
3. Among the assets of the Building Corporation is a 2.5 acre parcel of vacant and unimproved land that is located at 1129 Electrical Industrial Court, Rossford, Ohio. The Property is adjacent to the Training Plan's Existing Training Facility. The Building Corporation acquired the Property on August 26, 2011, from the Labor Management Cooperation Committee, Inc. (the LMCC), an entity affiliated with both the Union and the Building Corporation for an unknown acquisition price. The Building Corporation currently holds title to the Property, which is free and clear of any mortgage or other encumbrance.
4. The Training Plan seeks to purchase the Property from the Building Corporation. In this regard, if this exemption is granted, the Training Plan intends to utilize the Property to expand the size of its Existing Training Facility from 32,000 square feet to approximately 40,000 square feet. Pursuant to its stated expansion plans, the Training Plan will construct a 7,500 square foot pre-engineered building that will include 17 classrooms, 2 shop areas, a multipurpose room, and an administrative office area (the New Training Facility). The New Training Facility will accommodate training in rigging, cranes, forklifts, and other skills that the Existing Training Facility cannot provide. Based on preliminary cost estimates from local construction companies, the Applicant represents that the New Training Facility will cost approximately $240,000.
The Training Plan also intends to install a solar energy field (the Solar Field) on the Property to train Training Plan participants in solar panel installation and maintenance. The Applicant represents that Solar Field will cost approximately $760,000 to construct. The Applicant also represents that the seller of the solar panels will not be a party in interest with respect to the Training Plan, and that electricity generated by the solar panels will be for the sole use and benefit of the Training Plan. Further, the Applicant represents that installation work for the Solar Field will be undertaken by electrical apprentices and journeypersons, as part of their respective training.
5. In connection with the request for an exemption, the Training Plan has submitted a Real Estate Purchase Agreement which will govern the terms of the Purchase (the Purchase Agreement). As stated in the Purchase Agreement, the Training Plan will pay cash to acquire the Property and will not finance any portion of the purchase price. As also stated in the Purchase Agreement, the Training Plan will not pay any real estate fees, commissions or other expenses in connection with the Purchase, with the exception of the fees noted above.
A qualified independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary) will represent the interests of the Training Plan with respect to the proposed transaction. The Independent Fiduciary will base the fair market value of the Property on an appraisal report (the Appraisal Report) that has been prepared of the Property by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) on the date of the Purchase. The purchase price for the Property will be reduced by the total fees paid by the Training Plan for: (a) Independent Fiduciary services; (b) Independent Appraiser services; (c) environmental assessments of the Property; (d) feasibility studies of the Property; (e) closing costs associated with the Purchase; and (f) attorney's fees.
As reflected in meeting minutes, the Union Trustees recused themselves from participation in the decision to acquire the Property on behalf of the Training Plan. Only the Employer Trustees voted in favor of proceeding with the proposed Purchase.
Finally, the Purchase will not be part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding that is designed to benefit the Union. Further, the terms and conditions of the Purchase will be at least as favorable to the Training Plan as those obtainable in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party.
6. The Applicant represents that the proposed Purchase violates sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1), and
In addition, Section 3(14)(A) of the Act defines the term “party in interest” to include a fiduciary, such as the Trustees. Section 3(14)(D) of the Act defines the term “party in interest” to include an employee organization whose members are covered by a plan, such as the Union. Section 3(14)(G) of the Act defines the term “party in interest” to include a corporation of which 50% or more of the combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote are owned directly or indirectly or held by an employee organization, such as the Building Corporation. Thus, in the absence of a statutory or administrative exemption, the proposed Purchase would violate section 406(a)(1)(A) and section 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Section 406(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from dealing with the assets of the plan in such fiduciary's own interest or for such fiduciary's personal account. Section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from acting in such fiduciary's individual or other capacity in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or from representing a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the Plan, or the interests of the Plan participants and beneficiaries.
Section 406(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary from acting in such fiduciary's individual or other capacity in any transaction involving the plan on behalf of a party (or from representing a party) whose interests are adverse to the interests of the Plan, or the interests of the Plan participants and beneficiaries. As Trustees to the Training Plan and Union officers, the Union Trustees would be engaged in a prohibited act of self-dealing by causing the Training Plan to purchase the Property from the Union. The Union Trustees would also have divided loyalties in representing both the interests of the Training Plan and the Union with respect to the transaction. Therefore, the proposed Purchase would also violate section 406(b)(1) and section 406(b)(2) of the Act.
7. The Trustees have retained Bennett Speyer and Reed Hauptman of the law firm, Shumaker, Loop and Kendrick, LLP of Toledo, Ohio, to serve as the Independent Fiduciary for the Training Plan. The Independent Fiduciary represents that it has extensive experience in representing sponsors and fiduciaries of employee benefit plans. Further, the Independent Fiduciary represents that it has substantial knowledge and experience in real estate transactions and the due diligence customarily associated with such transactions.
Mr. Hauptman, who is a member of the Independent Fiduciary's management committee, is admitted to practice law in Ohio and Michigan and has 16 years of experience in real estate finance and development, land use planning, and business law. Mr. Speyer, who is also admitted to practice law in Ohio, has 25 years of experience in employee benefits law, including ERISA.
8. Messrs. Hauptman and Speyer represent that they are independent of and unrelated to the Union and the Building Corporation, and that they will not directly or indirectly receive any compensation or other consideration for their own account in connection with the Purchase, except for fees received in connection with their Independent Fiduciary duties. In addition, Messrs. Hauptman and Speyer represent that the annual compensation received by their law firm in connection with the Purchase is less than 0.5% of the firm's annual revenues for the year 2015.
9. In representing the interests of the Training Plan, the Independent Fiduciary will: (a) Determine whether the Purchase is in the interests of, and protective of, the Training Plan and the Training Plan participants; (b) review, negotiate, and approve the terms and conditions of the Purchase; (c) review and approve the methodology used by the Independent Appraiser in the Appraisal Report to ensure such methodology is consistent with sound principles of valuation, prior to the consummation of the Purchase; (d) ensure that the appraisal methodology is properly applied by the Independent Appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Property on the date of the Purchase, and determine whether it is prudent to proceed with such transaction; (e) represent the Training Plan's interests for all purposes with respect to the Purchase; and (f) not later than 90 days after the Purchase is completed, submit a written statement to the Department confirming that the purchase price paid by the Training Plan for the Property met the requirements of the exemption.
10. In the Independent Fiduciary Report, the Independent Fiduciary concludes that the proposed Purchase will provide the Training Plan with the opportunity to expand and improve its training offerings, which will help Training Plan participants remain competitive in the electrical construction industry. The Independent Fiduciary also concludes that Training Plan participants will benefit from the ease and accessibility of a campus arrangement by consolidating a variety of training opportunities into a single location.
11. The Independent Fiduciary represents that an expansion of the Existing Training Facility is necessary and in the best interest of Training Plan participants because the Training Plan is currently limited in its training capacity and offerings due to the limited size of the Existing Training Facility. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the Purchase will allow the Training Plan to expand the Existing Training Facility with minimal difficulty or hardship to the Training Plan's participants. The Independent Fiduciary explains that characteristics of the Property make it uniquely suited to the Training Plan's needs because: (a) The 2.5 acres of land comprising the Property are vacant, unimproved, nearly level and unshaded; (b) there are no recognized environmental conditions affecting the Property; and (c) zoning on the Property permits the construction of a solar field. The Independent Fiduciary also notes that a feasibility study of the Property concluded that the Property is the most desirable location for the Training Plan's construction of the Solar Field.
12. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the terms and conditions of the proposed Purchase are at least as favorable to the Training Plan as those obtainable in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party. In this regard, the Independent Fiduciary notes that the Building Corporation will pay all real estate taxes and assessments due and payable as of the closing date of the proposed Purchase, as well as all applicable transfer taxes and conveyance fees.
13. The Independent Fiduciary represents that it has reviewed the title commitment for the Property and has confirmed ownership of the Property by the Building Corporation. The
14. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the Training Plan has sufficient assets to pay for the acquisition of the Property and the planned improvements. In this regard, the Independent Fiduciary states that: (a) The Training Plan's operations are adequately funded through employer contributions on an ongoing basis; (b) the acquisition cost of the Property will involve approximately 1.4% of the Training Plan's total assets; and (c) the planned improvements will involve approximately 16.2% of the Training Plan's total assets. The Independent Fiduciary concludes that these costs will not have a material effect on the operation of the Training Plan.
15. The Independent Fiduciary has retained Martin + Wood Appraisal Group of Toledo, Ohio to render an opinion of the fair market value of the Property. The Independent Appraiser is a professional real estate appraisal and consulting firm located in Toledo, Ohio. Hubert L. Winegardner and Kenneth Wood have undertaken the specific duties of the Independent Appraiser. Mr. Winegardner is a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser with approximately 11 years of appraisal experience. Mr. Wood, a Review Appraiser and a Certified General Real Estate Appraiser with approximately 23 years of appraisal experience, is the President/CEO of the Independent Appraiser.
16. The Independent Appraiser represents that its fee for appraisal services provided in connection with the proposed Purchase represents less than 0.5% of its annual revenues in 2014 and 2015, which are the years it has provided such services.
17. In valuing the Property, the Independent Appraiser utilized the Sales Comparison Approach to valuation. As the Independent Appraiser explains in the Appraisal Report, “the Sales Comparison Approach is frequently considered the most reliable indicator of value, as it directly reflects prices currently being paid for comparable properties within the local market. This approach, according to the Independent Appraiser, typically provides a highly supportable estimate of value for relatively homogeneous properties where adjustments are few and relatively simple to compute.” After taking four comparable sales and one listing into consideration, the Independent Appraiser estimated the value of the Property to be $110,000, as of February 9, 2015. The Independent Appraiser will update the Appraisal Report on the date of the Purchase.
18. To further examine the appropriateness of the Property for the Training Plan's desired use, the Independent Fiduciary commissioned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to identify recognized environmental conditions on the Property. On September 4, 2013, Watterson Environmental & Facilities Management of Sylvania, Ohio, an unrelated party, completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Property (the Environmental Assessment) which revealed no evidence of any Recognized Environmental Conditions in connection with the Property. The Environmental Assessment also noted that there were no visual indications of aboveground or underground storage tanks or any indication of historic underground storage tanks on the Property.
19. The Applicant states that the proposed Purchase will involve a one-time transaction that will require no financing, as the Training Plan will pay for the purchase and subsequent construction of the New Training Facility and the Solar Field using available cash. Additionally, the Applicant emphasizes that the proposed Purchase will be carried out under the supervision and direction of the Independent Fiduciary, who will represent the Plan in all aspects of the transaction.
20. The Applicant represents that the proposed Purchase is in the interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries and are protective of their rights. In this regard, the Applicant states that the Training Plan's acquisition of the Property and the subsequent construction of the New Training Facility and the Solar Field will provide Training Plan participants with an expanded, updated, modernized and fully owned training facility which will allow participants to train and develop their electrical tradesmen skills and to adapt with changes in the electrical construction industry. In addition, due to the proximity of the Property to the Training Plan's Existing Training Facility, the Applicant represents that Training Plan participants will benefit from the ease and accessibility of a campus arrangement in which they will have access to a variety of training opportunities at a single location.
21. Given the conditions described below, the Department has tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicant satisfies the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act.
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 46637, 66644, October 27, 2011). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act, shall not apply to the Purchase by the Training Plan of the Property from the Building Corporation, a party in interest with respect to the Training Plan, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The Purchase is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) The purchase price paid by the Training Plan to the Building Corporation is equal to the fair market value of the Property, as determined by a qualified independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary), based upon an appraisal of the Property (the Appraisal Report) by a qualified independent appraiser (the Independent Appraiser) on the date of the Purchase,
(c) The Training Plan trustees appointed by the Union (the Union Trustees) recuse themselves from all aspects relating to the decision to purchase the Property on behalf of the Training Plan;
(d) With respect to the Purchase, the Independent Fiduciary undertakes the following duties on behalf of the Training Plan:
(1) Determines whether the Purchase is in the interests of, and protective of the Training Plan and the Training Plan participants;
(2) Reviews, negotiates, and approves the terms and conditions of the Purchase;
(3) Reviews and approves the methodology used by the Independent Appraiser in the Appraisal Report to
(4) Ensures that the appraisal methodology is properly applied by the Independent Appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Property on the date of the Purchase, and determines whether it is prudent to proceed with such transaction;
(5) Represents the Training Plan's interests for all purposes with respect to the Purchase; and
(6) Not later than 90 days after the Purchase is completed, submits a written statement to the Department demonstrating that the Purchase has satisfied the requirements of Condition (b), above;
(e) The Training Plan does not incur any fees, costs, commissions or other charges as a result of the Purchase, with the exception of the fees reimbursed by the Building Corporation, as set forth in Condition (b);
(f) The Purchase is not part of an agreement, arrangement, or understanding designed to benefit the Union; and
(g) The terms and conditions of the Purchase are at least as favorable to the Training Plan as those obtainable in an arm's-length transaction with an unrelated party.
The persons who may be interested in the publication in the
All comments will be made available to the public.
Mr. Joseph Brennan of the Department at (202) 693-8456. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011).
If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2) and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act, shall not apply, effective January 27, 2014 (the Effective Date), to: (1) The acquisition by the Plans of contingent value rights (CVRs) received by the Plans in connection with the merger (the Merger Transaction) of FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation (Merger Sub), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), with and into Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), with HMA surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CHS; and (2) the holding of the CVRs by the Plans.
1. HMA, a Delaware corporation, operates general acute care hospitals and other health care facilities in 15 states. As of December 31, 2013, HMA had total assets of approximately $6,384,651 and total stockholders' equity of approximately $776,281. As of the same date, there were approximately 264,495,000 shares of common stock of HMA (HMA Common Stock) issued and outstanding.
2. HMA sponsors the HMA Plan and the Mooresville Plan. The Plans are individual account plans that are intended to qualify under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and include a qualified cash or deferred arrangement described in section 401(k) of the Code. The Plans allow participants to direct the investment of their accounts under such Plans in various available investment alternatives that included, prior to the Merger Transaction, HMA Common Stock.
As of January 27, 2014, the date of the Merger Transaction, the HMA Plan had approximately 45,160 participants and beneficiaries and total assets of $824,529,117.14. As of the same date, the Mooresville Plan had 742 participants and total assets of $17,135,730.98.
As of January 24, 2014, the last trading day of the Shares prior to the closing of the Merger Transaction, 4,622,384.871 Shares of HMA Common Stock were held by the HMA Plan in accounts maintained for 15,824 participants, representing approximately 35% of the participants in such Plan. These Shares had an aggregate fair market value of $61,523,577.97, or approximately 7.46% of the aggregate fair market value of the HMA Plan's total assets, and represented approximately 1.75% of the 264,136,278.34 Shares that were issued and outstanding as of that date.
Similarly, as of January 24, 2014, 144,854.422 Shares of HMA Common Stock were held by the Mooresville Plan in accounts maintained for 288 participants, representing approximately 39% of the participants in such Plan. These Shares had an aggregate fair market value of $1,927,964.29, or approximately 11.25% of the aggregate fair market value of the Mooresville Plan's total assets, and represented approximately 0.05% of the 264,136,278.34 Shares that were issued and outstanding as of that date.
Prior to the closing of the Merger Transaction, Prudential Bank and Trust, FSB, served as the Plans' trustee, and the Plans were administered by the HMA Retirement Committee. Following the Merger Transaction, Delaware Charter Guarantee and Trust Company (d/b/a “Principal Trust Company”) began serving as the Plan's directed trustee, and the CHS Committee administers the Plans.
3. CHS, a Delaware corporation, provides healthcare services in non-urban and selected urban markets throughout the United States. CHS's common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol “CYH.” As of the end of the most recent accounting period prior to the Merger Transaction, CHS
4. On July 29, 2013, the Boards of Directors of HMA and CHS each approved the Merger Agreement, which was entered into on the same date by HMA, CHS and Merger Sub.
The terms of the Merger Transaction were negotiated at arm's-length and approved by the HMA and CHS Boards.
5. HMA took certain steps prior to the Merger Transaction in preparation for the acquisition of CVRs by the Plans. In this regard, certain provisions of the Plans and the Trust Agreements relating to the employer securities were amended to accommodate the acquisition and holding of the CVRs. In addition, notice of the Merger (the Notice), dated November 22, 2014, was provided to HMA shareholders (HMA Shareholders) who held HMA Common Stock as of the close of business on November 22, 2013 (the Record Date), including participants of the Plans.
In addition to the Notice, a separate notice (the Supplemental Notice) was sent to participants and beneficiaries of the Plans on January 10, 2014. The Supplemental Notice explained that participants in the Plans had the opportunity until 2:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on the business day immediately preceding the time of the Merger Transaction, to elect to move any portion of their accounts in the Plans that was invested in HMA Common Stock from that investment into other investment alternatives under the applicable Plan if the participants did not wish to receive the Merger Consideration.
6. A special meeting to vote on the Merger Transaction was held on January 8, 2014. As of the Record Date (
More than 99% of the votes, or 216,027,614 votes cast, were in favor of the Merger Transaction, and on January 27, 2014, HMA became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CHS. The acquisition of the CVRs by the Plans occurred on the same terms, and in the same manner, as the acquisition of CVRs by all other shareholders of HMA Common Stock who acquired CVRs. Shares held by participants in the HMA Plan were converted into the HMA Plan participants' right to receive collectively: (a) $48,535,041.15 in cash; (b) 320,885.958 shares of CHS common stock (valued at $40.48 per Share, or an aggregate value of $12,989,463.57, as of the close of trading on January 27, 2014); and (c) 4,622,384.871 CVRs (with a value of $0.05 per Share, or an aggregate value of $231,119.24, as of the close of trading on January 27, 2014).
Shares held by Mooresville Plan participants were converted into the right by such participants to receive collectively: (a) $1,520,971.43 in cash; (b) 10,055.794 shares of CHS common stock (valued at $40.48 per Share, or an aggregate value of $407,058.54, as of the close of trading on January 27, 2014); and (c) 144,854.422 CVRs (with a value of $0.05 per Share, or an aggregate value of $7,242.72, as of the close of trading on January 27, 2014).
7. The CVRs are unsecured, contingent payment obligations of CHS that are subordinated in right of payment to the prior payment in full of all senior obligations of CHS. They were issued by CHS pursuant to a CVR Agreement that was executed on January 27, 2014 by and between CHS and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC (the CVR Trustee), an unrelated party, and filed with the Securities Exchange Commission by CHS on January 28, 2014.
CHS is obligated under the CVR Agreement to use reasonable best efforts to ensure that the CVRs are traded on a national securities exchange, and they are currently listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol “CYHHZ.” The issuance of the CVRs was registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
8. Under the CVR Agreement, CHS is required to pay to the CVR Trustee, and the CVR Trustee is required to pay to the CVR holders, $1.00 per CVR (the CVR Payment Amount) promptly upon the final resolution (Final Resolution)
In addition, the CVR Agreement defines the term “Losses” to mean the amount of all losses, damages costs, fees and expenses, fines, penalties, settlement amounts, or indemnification obligations and other liabilities arising out of or relating to the Existing Litigation that are paid by CHS or any of its affiliates (including HMA) prior to the date of the CVR Payment Amount. However, Losses do not include: (a) The costs associated with any change to HMA's policies, procedures or practices; or (b) the loss of any (1) licenses or (2) rights and privileges to participate in government sponsored programs, even if required under a settlement agreement, consent decree, or other final non-appealable court judgment. The amount of any Losses will be net of any amounts actually recovered by CHS or any of its wholly-owned subsidiaries under insurance policies.
On a date established by CHS that is not later than thirty (30) days after the date on which Final Resolution of the Existing Litigation occurs, CHS will deliver the CVR Payment Amount to the CVR Trustee and provide notice of the calculation made to determine the CVR Payment Amount to the CVR holders.
According to the Applicants, there is no set date for when the Final Resolution of the Existing Litigation must occur, and thus there is no termination date for payment of the CVRs. In the event CHS fails to make timely payment, the CVR Trustee may, by written notice to CHS, or upon the written request by thirty percent (30%) or more of the CVR holders to CHS and to the CVR Trustee, bring suit to obtain payment for any amounts due and payable. Interest will accrue on unpaid amounts at a rate equal to the prime rate plus three percent.
In addition, the CVR Trustee will certify to the Department that the CVR Payment Amount has been properly calculated for each affected participant in the Plans. The CVR Trustee will also certify to the Department that no excess portion of the CVR Payment Amount reverts to CHS, its successors, or their affiliates.
9. The CVR Agreement also provides that each CVR holder has the right to sell his or her CVRs at any time. The rights of a CVR holder will remain in effect until all payment obligations under the CVR Agreement are satisfied or have terminated. Such rights will not lapse by reason of a failure on the part of the CVR holder to take timely action.
10. The Applicants state that holders of CVRs, including participants in the Plans, have exercised their rights under the CVR Agreement to sell CVRs. The Applicants state that of the approximately 4,767,239 CVRs received by the Plans, approximately 2,763,642 CVRs were still held by the Plans as of May 15, 2017. As such, the Applicants state that approximately 2,003,597 of the CVRs had been sold as of the same date.
11. In a letter dated July 29, 2013, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (Morgan Stanley), a global financial services firm engaged in the securities, investment management and individual wealth management businesses, advised HMA that the Merger Consideration to be received by HMA Shareholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement was “fair,” from a financial point of view. Also, in letters dated November 12, 2013, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (Lazard), an independent financial advisory and asset management firm, and UBS Securities LLC (UBS), a global investment bank, advised HMA that the Merger consideration to be received by the holders of HMA common stock in the Merger Transaction was “fair,” from a financial point of view, to such holders.
Morgan Stanley, Lazard, and UBS (together, the Fairness Advisers), among other things, (a) reviewed certain publicly available business and financial information of HMA and CHS, respectively; (b) reviewed certain financial projections prepared by the managements of HMA and CHS, respectively; (c) reviewed the projected synergies anticipated by the management of CHS from the Merger Transaction; (d) held discussions with senior executives of HMA and CHS with respect to the businesses and prospects of HMA and CHS, respectively; (e) reviewed the reported prices and trading activity for HMA Common Stock and CHS Common Stock; (f) reviewed the potential pro forma financial impact of the Merger Transaction on CHS based on certain financial studies; and (g) performed such other review and analyses and considered such other factors as deemed appropriate. The Fairness Advisers issued their opinions to the HMA Board, and made no recommendations as to how the HMA Shareholders should vote with respect to the Merger Transaction.
12. The Applicants have requested an administrative exemption from the Department for: (a) The acquisition by the Plans of CVRs in connection with the Merger Transaction; and (b) the holding of the CVRs by the Plans. If granted, the exemption would be effective as of January 27, 2014, and it would also apply to successor plans to the current Plans.
Section 406(a)(1)(E) of the Act prohibits the acquisition on behalf of a plan of any “employer security” in violation of section 407(a). Section 406(a)(2) of the Act prohibits a fiduciary who has authority or discretion to control or manage the assets of a plan to permit such plan to hold any “employer security” if he knows or should know that the holding of such security violates section 407(a) of the Act. Section 407(a) of the Act prohibits a plan from acquiring or holding employer securities that are not “qualifying employer securities.” Section 407(d)(5) defines the term “qualifying employer securities,” in relevant part, as an employer security which is stock or a marketable obligation.
The Applicants represent that, as registered securities issued by CHS, the CVRs constitute “employer securities” under section 407(d)(1)
13. In light of the foregoing prohibitions, the Applicants represent that HMA considered whether it would better serve the interests of participants and beneficiaries in the Plans to remove HMA Common Stock from the Plans prior to the Merger Transaction or to retain HMA Common Stock in the Plans and apply for exemptive relief covering the CVRs received by the Plans in the Merger. According to the Applicants, HMA determined that a decision to eliminate HMA Common Stock from the Plans would deprive participants and beneficiaries with interests in HMA Common Stock of the ability to realize the full value of the consideration that would be paid to other shareholders, by forcing a pre-closing sale and effectively depriving participants of investment
14. The Applicants represent that the proposed exemption is administratively feasible because the acquisition of the CVRs by the Plans was a one-time transaction. The Applicants represent that the proposed exemption is in the interest of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries because it maximizes their ability to realize the full value of the consideration offered in exchange for their interests in HMA Common Stock by continuing to give them the discretionary ability to hold or sell the employer securities allocated to their accounts. The Applicants represent that a pre-closing sale of HMA Common Stock by the Plans would preclude the Plans' participants from choosing to hold CVRs within the Plans and thereby retain the possibility of substantial future payouts, and would instead force them to settle for the current implied market value of the CVRs.
Finally, the Applicants represent that the proposed exemption is protective of the rights of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries because it permits them to realize the same benefits as other shareholders in connection with the Merger Transaction. The Applicants state that the conditions of the exemption ensure that participants have the same rights with respect to CVRs allocated to their accounts under the Plans as other holders of CVRs.
15. Given the conditions described below, the Department has tentatively determined that the relief sought by the Applicants satisfies the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act.
If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2) and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act, shall not apply, effective January 27, 2014, to:
(1) The acquisition by the Plans of contingent value rights (CVRs) received by the Plans in connection with the merger (the Merger Transaction) of FWCT-2 Acquisition Corporation (the Merger Sub), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), with and into Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), with HMA surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CHS; and
(2) The holding of the CVRs by the Plans.
(a) The receipt of the CVRs by the Plans occurred in connection with the Merger Transaction, which was approved by ninety-nine percent (99%) of the shareholders of common stock of HMA (HMA Common Stock);
(b) For purposes of the Merger Transaction, all HMA Common Stock shareholders, including the Plans, were treated in the same manner;
(c) The acquisition of the CVRs by the Plans occurred on the same terms, and in the same manner, as the acquisition of CVRs by all other shareholders of HMA Common Stock who acquired CVRs;
(d) The terms of the Merger Transaction were negotiated at arm's-length;
(e) No fees, commissions or other charges are paid by the Plans with respect to the acquisition and holding of the CVRs by the Plans;
(f) Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (Morgan Stanley), Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (Lazard) and UBS Securities LLC (UBS) advised HMA that the consideration received by HMA shareholders (HMA Shareholders), including participants of the Plans, in exchange for their Shares was “fair,” from a financial point of view;
(g) The Plans have not and will not acquire or hold CVRs other than those acquired in connection with the Merger Transaction;
(h) Participants in the Plans may direct the Plans' trustee to sell CVRs allocated to their respective participant accounts in the Plans, at any time;
(i) The Plans do not sell a CVR to CHS or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, including HMA, in a non-“blind” transaction;
(j) For so long as the CVRs remain a permissible investment for each Plan, the retention or disposition of CVRs allocated to a participant's account has been and will be administered in accordance with the provisions of each Plan that are in effect for individually-directed investments of participant accounts;
(k) The CVR Trustee will certify to the Department that the CVR Payment Amount has been properly calculated for each affected participant in the Plans; and
(l) The CVR Trustee will certify to the Department that no excess portion of the CVR Payment Amount reverts to CHS, its successors, or their affiliates.
Within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of the proposed exemption in the
All comments will be made available to the public.
Anna Mpras Vaughan of the Department, telephone (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of the Act, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be granted under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department must find that the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interests of the plan and of its participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemptions, if granted, will be subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in each application are true and complete, and that each application accurately describes all material terms of the transaction which is the subject of the exemption.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Advisory Committee. This Committee reports to the Director, Astrophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, July 20, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
On July 19: NASA Headquarters, Room 6H42, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546. On July 20: Residence Inn Capitol, Senate Room, 333 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-888-469-3018 or toll number 1-210-234-0113, passcode 6295733, to participate in this meeting by telephone on both days. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
The agenda will be posted on the Astrophysics Advisory committee Web page:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, any attendees with driver's licenses issued from non-compliant states must present a second form of ID. Non-compliant states are: Minnesota and Missouri. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) can provide full name and citizenship status 3 working days in advance. Information should be sent to Ms. KarShelia Henderson, via email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application for the renewal of operating license NPF-47, which authorizes Entergy Operations, Inc. (the applicant) to operate River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS). The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate RBS for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current license. The current operating license for RBS expires at midnight on August 29, 2025.
The license renewal application referenced in this document was available on June 2, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 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:
•
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Emmanuel Sayoc, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4084; email:
The NRC has received an application from Entergy Operations, Inc., dated May 25, 2017, filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 54 of title 10 of the
A copy of the license renewal application for the RBS, is also available to local residents near the site at the West Feliciana Parish Library at 5114 Burnett Rd., St. Francisville, LA 70775.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to an August 22, 2016, request from Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) in order to use Optimized ZIRLO
The exemption was issued on June 19, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0124 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:
•
•
•
V. Sreenivas, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2597, email:
Exelon Generation Company, LLC is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, which authorizes operation of Ginna, a pressurized-water reactor. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The facility is located in Ontario, New York, approximately 20 miles northeast of Rochester, New York.
Pursuant to § 50.12 of title 10 of the
The exemption request relates solely to the specific types of cladding material specified in these regulations (
Pursuant to § 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common
The exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The underlying purpose of § 50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria for adequate ECCS performance. By letter dated June 10, 2005, the NRC staff issued a safety evaluation (ADAMS Accession No ML051670408) approving Addendum 1 to Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, “Optimized ZIRLO
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, section I.A.5, “Metal-Water Reaction Rate,” is to ensure that cladding oxidation and hydrogen generation are appropriately limited during a loss-of-coolant accident and conservatively accounted for in the ECCS evaluation model. Appendix K states that the rates of energy release, hydrogen concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water reaction shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. Since the Baker-Just equation presumes the use of zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of the rule would not permit use of the equation for Optimized ZIRLO
Based on the above, no new accident precursors are created by using Optimized ZIRLO
The proposed exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
Special circumstances, in accordance with § 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of § 50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance. The wording of the regulations in § 50.46 and appendix K is not directly applicable to Optimized ZIRLO
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in § 51.22(c)(9) because it is related to a requirement concerning the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR part 20, and the granting of this exemption involves: (1) No significant hazards consideration, (2) no significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (3) no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, in accordance with § 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the NRC's consideration of this exemption request. The basis for the NRC staff's determination is discussed as follows with an evaluation against each of the requirements in § 51.22(c)(9).
The NRC staff evaluated the issue of no significant hazards consideration, using the standards described in § 50.92(c), as presented below:
1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
2. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Use of Optimized ZIRLO
3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Topical Report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, demonstrated that the material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in § 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified (
The proposed exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The proposed exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in § 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, in accordance with § 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the NRC's proposed issuance of this exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to § 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Exelon an exemption from certain requirements of § 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On March 13, 2017, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On June 19, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3. (SR-NYSE-2017-12).
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 amend Rule 7014(j) to provide a second credit tier under the Nasdaq Growth Program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 7014(j) to provide a second credit tier under the Nasdaq Growth Program (“Program”). Nasdaq introduced the Program in 2016.
Rule 7014(j) currently provides three ways in which a member may qualify for the Program in a given month. First, the member may qualify for the Program by: (i) Adding greater than 750,000 shares a day on average during the month through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs; and (ii) increasing its shares of liquidity provided through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs as a percent of Consolidated Volume by 20% versus the member's Growth Baseline.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 7014(j) to provide a second credit tier under the Program.
The Exchange believes that the new rebate tier provides members with additional flexibility in qualifying for the Program and incentive to provide greater Consolidated Volume, thereby furthering the Program's goal of incentivizing participation on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Program is reasonable because, although the proposed rebate is higher than the current rebate provided under the Program, the qualification criteria is higher than the current rebate. Moreover, the Exchange offers other similar rebates in return for market improving behavior.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitably allocated among members, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination. The Exchange notes that participation in the Program is voluntary, and that any member may qualify for the credit if it meets the qualification requirements. The Exchange is adopting the new credit tier to provide members with an incentive to increase their participation significantly, as represented by a percent of Consolidated Volume. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate will serve as a logical extension of the current rebate. Specifically, a member that continues to qualify under the current rebate will eventually increase its shares of liquidity to a point that is 50% or greater than its shares of liquidity in August 2016. Thus, so long as the member provides 0.04% or more of Consolidated Volume through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs during the month through non-displayed orders, the member would receive the higher rebate. The Exchange is electing to use August 2016 as the benchmark for the qualification criteria under the second requirement of the rebate tier because the member's activity during that month was unaffected by foreknowledge of the Program. The proposed change applies to all members that otherwise qualify for the Program, namely members that add at least 0.04% or more of Consolidated Volume during the month through one or more of its [sic] Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs and has [sic] shares of liquidity to a point that is greater that is 50% or greater than their shares of liquidity in August 2016. The Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory to use zero as the level of shares of liquidity provided in August 2016 for members that were not members in August 2016 because they are similarly positioned as other members of the Exchange that were members at that time yet did not have shares of liquidity provided in August 2016. The Exchange notes that all members must provide a significant level of Consolidated Volume to qualify for the proposed new rebate regardless of their membership status in August 2016, in addition to meeting the proposed growth criteria. Moreover, the Exchange believes that all members should have the opportunity to participate in the Program and, to the extent that the proposed new rebate attracts new members to the Exchange, all market participants will benefit from the added liquidity new members provide. As noted above, the Exchange currently uses zero as the level of shares of liquidity provided in August 2016 for members that were not members in August 2016 for purposes of qualifying for the $0.0025 per share executed credit. The Exchange notes that participation in the Program is entirely voluntary and proposed rebate will be provided to any member that meets the qualification criteria.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
In this instance, the Exchange is proposing to provide a new, higher, Program rebate, which will require a member to provide significant Consolidated Volume together with a significant increase to its Consolidated Volume over a baseline amount of Consolidated Volume it had in August 2016. This proposed rebate is designed to provide incentive to members to increase their participation on the Exchange. Participation in the Program is completely voluntary and the criteria will ensure that all members that qualify for the Program have both shown a significant increase in their participation on the Exchange and are providing significant overall participation on the Exchange. Ultimately, if members conclude that the qualification requirements are set too high, or the rebate too low, it is likely that the Exchange will realize very little benefit from the incentive. If the proposed rebate is successful in increasing participation on the Exchange, then other trading venues may also make a similar rebate available to their participants. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition whatsoever, but rather believes that the proposal is pro-competitive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-060. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
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 proposed rule change by DTC would add new Rule 36 (Segregated Accounts for Swap Margin) (“Proposed Rule 36”) to provide Accounts
In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposal would add Proposed Rule 36 to provide Accounts for the segregation of Securities held at DTC that are intended to be Pledged as swap margin in conformity with certain regulations applicable to swap counterparties posting swap margin. The proposal would allow Participants to transfer Deposited Securities to a Swap Margin Segregation Account of a Pledgee designated for the purpose of segregating Swap Margin subject to applicable Swap Margin Segregation Rules (defined below). A Swap Margin Segregation Account would be maintained by DTC for, and at the instruction of, the Swap Margin Pledgee.
Currently, a Participant (“Pledgor”) may instruct DTC to Pledge Securities from its Account to the Account of a Pledgee (“Pledgee Account”), in order to Pledge such Securities to such Pledgee.
The Pledgor continues to own the Securities, subject to the Pledge, and the Pledgee may Release the Pledged Securities to the Pledgor. The DTC Rules further provide that the Pledgee may exercise Control
DTC also offers a shared-control Account for Pledges (“Shared Control Account”).
The proposed rule change would build on these existing Pledge services to expressly accommodate the requirements of the Swap Margin Segregation Rules, as further described below.
The Prudential Regulators, as defined below, and the CFTC have adopted rules (the “Swap Margin Segregation Rules”)
In light of these requirements, in order to facilitate use of DTC by Participants and Pledgees that are subject to the Swap Margin Segregation Rules, DTC designed Proposed Rule 36 to provide an express set of provisions that track the requirements of the Swap Margin Segregation Rules. Proposed Rule 36 would (i) provide that a Swap Margin Pledgee may establish a Swap Margin Segregation Account which would operate as a Pledgee Account,
The proposed rule change would add Rule 36 to the DTC Rules, which would provide for a number of items, as described below.
1. Proposed Rule 36 would provide for the establishment and maintenance of one or more Swap Margin Segregation Accounts by a Swap Margin Pledgee, for the purpose of holding Swap Margin. There would be two types of Swap Margin Segregation Accounts:
i. A Swap Margin Segregation Account with respect to which only the Swap Margin Pledgee may issue instructions (“Restricted Access Swap Margin Account”); and
ii. a Swap Margin Segregation Account with respect to which either a Swap Margin Pledgee or Swap Margin Pledgor may issue instructions (“Shared Access Swap Margin Account”). The purpose of a Shared Access Swap Margin Account, like the Shared Control Account referred to above, would be to provide the Swap Margin Pledgor a mechanism to transfer the Swap Margin Securities from the Shared Access Swap Margin Account without obtaining the consent of the Swap Margin Pledgee, if the Swap Margin Pledgee were in default in accordance with the agreements of the parties to the relevant swap or security-based swap.
2. Proposed Rule 36 would provide for the instruction of a Swap Margin Pledgor to DTC to:
i. Transfer Swap Margin from an account of the Swap Margin Pledgor (“Swap Margin Origination Account”) to a Restricted Access Swap Margin Account or Shared Access Swap Margin Account of a Swap Margin Pledgee, free of payment through the facilities of DTC. By issuing such an instruction, the Swap Margin Pledgor would be representing to DTC that the instruction complies with the Swap Margin Segregation Rules and the Swap Agreement of the parties; and
ii. transfer Swap Margin from a Shared Access Swap Margin Account of a Swap Margin Pledgee back to the relevant Swap Margin Origination Account of the Swap Margin Pledgor, free of payment. By issuing such an instruction, the Swap Margin Pledgor would be representing to DTC that the instruction complies with the Swap Margin Segregation Rules and the Swap Agreement of the parties.
3. Proposed Rule 36 would provide for the instruction of a Swap Margin Pledgee to DTC to:
i. Transfer Swap Margin from a Swap Margin Segregation Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee back to the relevant Swap Margin Origination Account of a Swap Margin Pledgor, free of payment. By issuing such instruction, the Swap Margin Pledgee would be representing to DTC that the instruction complies with the Swap Margin Segregation Rules and the Swap Agreement of the parties; and
ii. transfer Swap Margin from a Swap Margin Segregation Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee to another Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee, free of payment. By issuing such instruction, the Swap Margin Pledgee would be representing to DTC that the instruction complies with the Swap Margin Segregation Rules and the Swap Agreement of the parties.
4. Proposed Rule 36 would provide for the covenants of DTC that:
i. Swap Margin held in a Swap Margin Segregation Account of a Swap Margin Pledgee shall be held by DTC free and clear of any security interest, lien or other claim by DTC to secure any obligation of any Swap Margin Pledgor or Swap Margin Pledgee to DTC; and
ii. DTC shall not rehypothecate, repledge, reuse or otherwise transfer (through securities lending, securities borrowing, repurchase agreement, reverse repurchase agreement or other means) any such Swap Margin.
Proposed Rule 36 would provide for DTC's disclaimer of liability:
i. To any Swap Margin Pledgee as a result of DTC acting on an instruction from any Swap Margin Pledgor (i) to transfer Swap Margin from a Swap Margin Origination Account of the Swap Margin Pledgor to a Swap Margin Segregation Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee or (ii) to transfer Swap Margin from a Shared Access Swap Margin Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee back to the relevant Swap Margin Origination Account of the Swap Margin Pledgor even if DTC receives a conflicting instruction from the Swap Margin Pledgee to transfer such Swap Margin from such Shared Access Swap Margin Account to another Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee;
ii. to any Swap Margin Pledgor as a result of DTC acting on an instruction from any Swap Margin Pledgee (i) to transfer Swap Margin from a Swap Margin Segregation Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee back to the relevant Swap Margin Origination Account of the Swap Margin Pledgor, (ii) to transfer Swap Margin from a Restricted Access Swap Margin Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee to another Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee, or (iii) to transfer Swap Margin from a Shared Access Swap Margin Account of the Swap Margin Pledgee to another
iii. to any Swap Margin Pledgor or Swap Margin Pledgee as a result of (i) any loss or liability suffered or incurred by such Swap Margin Pledgor or Swap Margin Pledgee arising out of or relating to the matters subject to Rule 36, unless caused directly by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of DTC or by a violation of Federal securities law by DTC for which there is a private rule of action, or (ii) any force majeure, market disruption or technical malfunction that prevents DTC from performing its obligations to such Swap Margin Pledgor or Swap Margin Pledgee pursuant to Rule 36; or
iv. to any third party (including any customer of any Swap Margin Pledgor or Swap Margin Pledgee) for any reason.
The proposed rule change would be implemented 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate.
DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) requires,
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition because the proposed rule and its features are available to all Participants and Pledgees equally on a non-discriminatory basis. Swap Margin Pledgors and Swap Margin Pledgees will be charged fees applicable to the maintenance of Accounts and transaction fees that are not different from established published fees.
DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit comments regarding the proposed rule change. DTC has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties. To the extent DTC receives written comments on the proposed rule change, DTC will forward such comments to the Commission.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2017-009 and should be submitted on or before July 19, 2017.
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 amend Section III of the Schedule of Fees to eliminate FX Option fees and rebates for trades executed on June 12-30, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Section III of the Schedule of Fees to eliminate FX Option fees and rebates for trades executed on June 12-30, 2017 in connection with the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET technology, which is scheduled to begin on June 12, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to eliminate fees and rebates for FX Options during the initial launch of the Exchange's re-platformed trading system. Eliminating FX Option fees and rebates during this period will simplify the Exchange's billing and serve as an inducement for members to trade the first symbols migrated to the INET trading system. Because the Exchange is offering free executions in these symbols, volume executed in FX Options on June 12-30, 2017 will not be counted towards any volume based tiers. Similar treatment was afforded to the first symbol launched on the Nasdaq GEMX, LLC INET trading system.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 20, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would make clarifications and corrections (including the addition of certain new definitions, as described in more detail below) to FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (the “GSD Rules”), Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) Clearing Rules (the “MBSD Clearing Rules”) and MBSD EPN Rules (the “EPN Rules,” and collectively with the GSD Rules and the MBSD Clearing Rules, the “Rules”), as described in greater detail below.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make certain clarifications and corrections (including the addition of certain new definitions) to the Rules so that the Rules remain consistent and clear. The proposed changes consist only of clarifications and corrections (including the addition of certain new definitions) and do not change any of the rights or obligations of the GSD Members, MBSD Members or EPN Users.
FICC is proposing to make the following changes to the GSD Rules:
(1) Delete the incorrect reference to “Section 1 of Rule 2” in the definition of “Bank Netting Member” and replace it with a reference to “Section 2 of Rule 2A.”
(2) Correct certain definitions relating to brokers and dealers and add certain defined terms in conjunction with such corrections, as described below (collectively, the changes referred to in this item (2) are referred to as the “Broker/Dealer Changes”):
(i) FICC has identified that the existing terms “Registered Government Securities Brokers” and “Registered Government Securities Dealers” refer to brokers and dealers registered with the Commission under either Section 15 or Section 15C of the Act, when such terms should only refer to brokers and dealers registered under Section 15C of the Act. The proposed rule change would correct these definitions in this regard.
(ii) Two new terms, “Registered Broker” and “Registered Dealer,” would be added to GSD Rule 1 to address brokers and dealers that are registered under Section 15 of the Act.
(iii) The term “Broker,” which is defined in part as a “Registered Government Securities Broker,” would be updated to add a reference to a “Registered Broker.” In addition, “or” is being added to reflect that a Broker would include a Registered Broker or a Registered Government Securities Broker. These corrections would make the definition consistent with the manner in which the term “Broker” is used throughout the GSD Rules and consistent with the corrections noted above in clauses (i) and (ii).
(iv) The term “Dealer,” which is defined as a “Registered Government Securities Dealer,” would be updated to add a reference to a “Registered Dealer.” In addition, “or” is being added to reflect that a Dealer would include a Registered Dealer or a Registered Government Securities Dealer. These corrections would make the definition consistent with the manner in which the term “Dealer” is used throughout the GSD Rules and consistent with the corrections noted above in clauses (i) and (ii).
(3) Delete references to “Category 1 Inter-Dealer Broker” and “Category 2 Inter-Dealer Broker” in the definition of “Brokered Transaction” and replace them with “Inter-Dealer Broker,” make a grammatical change, and change the numbering in the definition to reflect the replacements. The concept of and all other references to Category 1 Inter-Dealer Brokers and Category 2 Inter-Dealer Brokers were intended to be removed from the GSD Rules in connection with the Commission's approval of rule filing SR-FICC-2010-09,
(4) Delete the references to “Registered Government Securities Broker” and “Registered Government Securities Dealer” in the definition of “Covered Affiliate” and replace each reference with “Broker” and “Dealer,” respectively. Currently, “Covered Affiliate” is defined in part to include certain “Registered Government Securities Brokers” and “Registered Government Securities Dealers,” however, this definition should also include certain “Registered Brokers” and “Registered Dealers,” as such terms are proposed to be added in this filing. The revised terms “Broker” and “Dealer” as proposed by this filing would also include Registered Brokers and Registered Dealers. This correction would make the definition consistent with the manner in which the term “Covered Affiliate” is used throughout the GSD Rules and consistent with the Broker/Dealer Changes noted above.
(5) Change the definition of the term “Designated Examining Authority” to replace the existing descriptions of brokers and dealers with “Broker or Dealer, as applicable.” The use of the updated terms “Broker” and “Dealer” as proposed above and the addition of “as applicable” would refer to brokers and dealers registered under Section 15 of the Act and under Section 15C of the Act in a more succinct manner, would ensure consistency with the manner in which “Designated Examining Authority” is used throughout the GSD Rules and would be consistent with the Broker/Dealer Changes noted above.
(6) Delete the repeated definitions of the terms “Eligible Letter of Credit” and “Eligible Netting Security.”
(7) Delete the reference to “whole percentage” and replace it with “two decimal places” in the definition of the term “Excess Capital Ratio” to reflect that the quotient is rounded to the nearest two decimal places. The proposed change would make the GSD Rules consistent with the MBSD Clearing Rules, which would have an equivalent definition.
(8) Delete the reference to “GSCC” and replace it with “the Corporation” in the definition of the “Full-Sized Trade” because GSCC is not a defined term that is used in the GSD Rules. GSCC refers
(9) Add a new defined term for “Inter-Dealer Broker” consistent with the manner in which the term is currently used in the GSD Rules and consistent with the MBSD Clearing Rules, which have the equivalent definition.
(10) Delete the following definitions because they are not used in the GSD Rules: “Member Brokered Transaction,” “Non-Member Brokered Transaction,” and “Offsetting Position.”
(1) Delete the references to “Registered Government Securities Dealer” and replace them with “Dealer” in Section 2(a)(ii) to reflect the Broker/Dealer Changes noted above.
(2) Correct two grammatical errors in Section 2(a)(iv).
(3) Delete the references to “Duff & Phelps (“D&P”)” and “D&P” and replace them with “Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”)” and “Fitch,” respectively, in Section 4 because Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co. was acquired by Fitch IBCA.
(4) Delete the incorrect reference to “Rule 3” and replace it with “this Rule 2A” in Section 6.
Add “Ratio” after the reference to “Excess Capital” to read “Excess Capital Ratio” in Section 14. Section 14 requires a Netting Member to make a Clearing Fund deposit if its Excess Capital Ratio exceeds 1.0 because of the perceived risk posed by such Netting Member. Such deposit is calculated to bring the Clearing Fund to a desired level regarding the risk relating to such Netting Member. FICC currently calculates and has historically calculated this deposit using the Excess Capital Ratio as a multiple. Reference to Excess Capital as the multiple in the GSD Rules is incorrect—using Excess Capital as the multiple would result in a deposit requirement for a Netting Member that far exceeds the amount that FICC has determined is needed to increase the Clearing Fund to the desired level. The proposed change would make the GSD Rules consistent with the MBSD Clearing Rules, which have an equivalent formula in MBSD Clearing Rule 3 Section 12.
(1) Delete the incorrect reference to “Section 8” in the first paragraph of Section 5 and replace it with “Section 7.”
(2) Delete the phrase “Category 1” before the words “Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Member” in Section 5 and make a grammatical change to reflect the deletion. The concept of and all other references to the term Category 1 were intended to be removed from the GSD Rules in connection with the Commission's approval of rule filing SR-FICC-2010-09,
Capitalize the word “trades” in the phrase “Full-Sized trades” in Section 4 so that it reflects the defined term “Full-Sized Trade,” which is currently included in GSD Rule 1.
(1) Remove a reserved section heading and renumber section headings that currently follow that heading to reflect its removal.
(2) Delete the phrase “or an Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Member” in the third sentence in proposed renumbered Section 2 because the term Inter-Dealer Broker Netting Member is inadvertently referenced twice.
Remove a reserved section heading and renumber section headings that currently follow that heading to reflect its removal.
FICC is proposing to make the following changes to the MBSD Clearing Rules:
(1) Add a new defined term for “Close of Business” consistent with the manner in which the term is currently used in the MBSD Clearing Rules and consistent with the GSD Rules which have the equivalent definition.
(2) Delete the word “whole” from the phrase “whole two decimal places” in the definition of “Excess Capital Ratio” to reflect the standard convention for referencing decimals.
Delete the phrase “close of business” and replace it with “Close of Business” in Section 2 so that it reflects the proposed new defined term “Close of Business,” which would be added in MBSD Clearing Rule 1.
(1) Delete the references to “Total Amount” and replace them with “Required Fund Deposit” in Section 2(d) because Total Amount is not a defined term and the correct reference in that section should be to the amount a Clearing Member is required to deposit to the Clearing Fund pursuant to MBSD Clearing Rule 4, which is the “Required Fund Deposit.
(2) Delete the reference to “deposit” and replace it with “Required Fund Deposit” in Section 3 because the correct reference in that section should be to the amount a Clearing Member is required to deposit to the Clearing Fund pursuant to MBSD Clearing Rule 4, which is the “Required Fund Deposit.”
(3) Clarify that the minimum amount of cash a Clearing Member must deposit into its Required Fund Deposit is $100,000 in Section 3. Section 2(d) refers to the same minimum Required Fund Deposit amount and the proposed change would make Section 3 consistent with Section 2(d).
(4) Delete the references to “close of business” and replace them with “Close of Business” in Section 5 and Section 8 so that they reflect the proposed new defined term “Close of Business,” which would be added in MBSD Clearing Rule 1.
FICC is proposing to make the following changes to the EPN Rules:
(1) Add a period after “Rule 1” to conform the punctuation in EPN Rule 1 with other EPN Rules.
(2) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article VII” and replace it with “Article II” in the definition of “Account.”
(3) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article VI” and replace it with
(4) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article X” and replace it with “Article V” in the definition of “EPN Procedures.”
(5) Delete the incorrect cross-references to “Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the Rules,” in the definition of “EPN Rules.” Such references to the Articles are unnecessary.
(6) Move the definition of “EPN Service” so that it is in correct alphabetical order.
(7) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article VIII” and replace it with “Article III” in the definition of “EPN User Agreement.”
(8) Delete the definition of “Membership and Risk Management Committee” because this term is not used in the EPN Rules.
(9) Move the definition of “Messages” so that it is in correct alphabetical order.
(10) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article VII” and replace it with “Article II” in the definition of “Message Detail Report.”
(11) Delete the incorrect reference to “Article VII” and replace it with “Article II” in the definition of “Message Summary Report.”
(12) Delete the definition of “Operations and Planning Committee” because this term is not used in the EPN Rules.
Correct a grammatical error and delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article X” and replace it with “Article V.”
(1) Add the following language to EPN Rule 1 Section 1: “The Corporation shall maintain one or more Accounts for each EPN User” because this language appears to have been inadvertently deleted from previous versions of the EPN Rules.
(2) Delete the term “Reports” and replace it with lowercased “reports” in EPN Rule 2 Section 1 because Reports is not a defined term in the EPN Rules.
(1) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article X” and replace it with “Article V” and correct a grammatical error in EPN Rule 1 Section 5.
(2) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article X” and replace it with “Article V” in EPN Rule 1 Section 7.
(3) Correct two grammatical errors in EPN Rule 2 Section 1.
(4) Delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article VIII” and replace it with “Article III” in EPN Rule 3 Section 1.
(1) Add “EPN” before each reference to “Rules” because “EPN Rules” is the correct defined term.
(2) Remove extra spaces between “Interested” and “Person” in the first paragraph of Rule 7 Section 1 and replace “a” with “an” before the proposed addition of “EPN” in the second paragraph of Rule 7 Section 1 for grammatical correctness.
(3) Add “EPN” before each reference to “Procedures” because “EPN Procedures” is the correct defined term.
(4) Add a tab space before certain paragraphs throughout Article V to conform the spacing in Article V to the other Articles in the EPN Rules.
(5) Delete the reference to “minor rule violation” and replace it with “Minor Rule Violation” in EPN Rule 7 Section 3 so that it reflects the defined term, “Minor Rule Violation,” which is currently included in EPN Rule 7 Section 2, and correct the cross-reference in that Section to reflect that the term “Minor Rule Violation” is defined in Section 2 of EPN Rule 7 rather than Section 3.
(6) Delete the heading “SEC. 6. FINALITY OF CORPORATION ACTION” because it is misplaced, and reorder the numbering for each EPN Rule that currently follows that heading so that each such EPN Rule continues as part of Article V.
(7) Correct a grammatical error in proposed renumbered EPN Rule 14(b)(ii).
(8) Correct a grammatical error, and delete the incorrect cross-reference to “Article X” and replace it with “Article V” in proposed renumbered EPN Rule 14(c).
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact on competition because the proposed changes to the Rules are clarifications and corrections (including the addition of certain new definitions), which would not change FICC's current practices or the rights or obligations of the GSD Members, MBSD Members or EPN Users bound by the applicable Rules. Therefore, the proposed changes should have no effect on the GSD Members, MBSD Members or EPN Users that are bound by the applicable Rules other than to foster a better understanding of the applicable Rules by such GSD Members, MBSD Members and EPN Users.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• 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 of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to July 28, 2017.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to the Office of Passport Services, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Passport Demand Forecasting Survey requests information from the general public about the demand for U.S. passports, anticipated travel, and the demographic profile of the respondent. This voluntary survey is conducted on a monthly basis using responses from a randomly selected but nationally representative sample of U.S. nationals ages 18 and older. The information obtained from the survey is used to monitor and project the demand for U.S. passport books and U.S. passport cards. The Passport Demand Forecasting Survey aids the Department of State, Passport Services in making decisions about staffing, resource allocation, and budget planning.
The Department of State published a 60-day notice in the
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to July 28, 2017.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Joan F. Grew, who may be reached on 703-875-5412 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is publishing the annual inflation- adjusted index factors for 2016. These factors are used by the railroads to adjust their gross annual operating revenues for classification purposes. This indexing methodology ensures that railroads are classified based on real business expansion and not on the effects of inflation. Classification is important because it determines the extent to which individual railroads must comply with STB reporting requirements.
The STB's annual inflation-adjusted factors are based on the annual average Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The STB's deflator factor is used to deflate revenues for comparison with established revenue thresholds.
The base year for railroads is 1991. The inflation index factors are presented as follows:
By the Board, William Brennan, Acting Director, Office of Economics.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of record of decision.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its decision to adopt the Department of the Navy's (DoN) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), the Council on Environmental Quality's (“CEQ”) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable authorities, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2K, “Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,” paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an independent review and evaluation of the DoN's EIS and SEIS for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California dated July 2012 and January 2017 respectively. As a cooperating agency with responsibility for approving special use airspace under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise to the DoN during the environmental review process. Based on its independent review and evaluation, the FAA has determined the EIS and SEIS, including all supporting documentation, as incorporated by reference, adequately assesses and discloses the environmental impacts for the temporary special use air space, and that adoption of the 2012 and 2017 EISs by the FAA is authorized under 40 CFR 1506.3, Adoption. Accordingly, the FAA adopts the 2012 and 2017 EISs, and takes full responsibility for the scope and content that addresses the proposed temporary changes to Special Use Airspace in the vicinity of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms.
Paula Miller, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7378.
In July 2012, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the DoN released a Final EIS. The Final EIS presented the potential environmental consequences of the DoN's proposal to establish Special Use Airspace to support Navy training activities that involve the use of advanced weapons systems. The U.S. Marine Corps is the proponent for the temporary SUA in the vicinity of Twentynine Palms, California, and the DoN is the lead agency for the preparation of the EIS and SEIS. The DoN issued their RODs on 2013 and 2017. As a result of public, agency, and tribal comments, and the FAA aeronautical review process; the DoN, FAA, other Federal and State agencies, and tribal governments have
The FAA is establishing the following temporary special use airspace: Restricted area R-2509 E/W/N, Johnson Valley MOA/ATCAA, Sundance High MOA/ATCAA, Sundance West MOA/ATCAA, Bristol Low MOA, Bristol ATCAA, CAX Low/High MOA/ATCAA, and Turtle MOA/ATCAA. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for temporary R-2509 was published in the
The Adoption and ROD for the establishment of temporary special use airspace in the vicinity of the Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may apply for review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, about 12 miles north of the community of Bridgeport, along 3.13 miles of U.S. Highway 395 in Mono County, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before November 27, 2017. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For Caltrans: Angela Calloway, Office Chief, District 9 Environmental; Caltrans District 9; 500 S. Main St., Bishop, CA 93514; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.; (760) 872-2424;
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California: The project proposes to widen the paved shoulders from 2 to 3 feet to 8 feet on U.S. Highway 395 (U.S. 395) in Mono County, north of the community of Bridgeport, near Sonora Junction, from 0.3 mile north of Devil's Gate Summit (post mile 88.42) to Burcham Flat Road (post mile 91.55). In addition, the existing curve between post miles 91.25 and 91.55 (Lemus Curve) has a nonstandard radius and super elevation rate. There were no actions taken by any Federal agencies. The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, and Caltrans' Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), was approved and issued on May 3, 2017. The EA, FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the address provided above. The Caltrans EA and FONSI can also be viewed and downloaded from the Internet at:
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500
2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4351
3. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141);
4. Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
5. Noise Control Act of 1979 (42 U.S.C. 4901
6. FHWA Noise Standards, Policies, and Procedures (23 CFR 772);
7. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303);
8. Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987 (33 U.S.C. 1344);
9. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543);
10. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712);
11. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 306108
12. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands;
13. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management;
14. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species;
15. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice and Low-Income Populations;
16. Title VI of Civil Rights Act 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR