| Page Range | 32227-32445 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 32322 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32381 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
| 82 FR 32303 - Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions | |
| 82 FR 32304 - Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions | |
| 82 FR 32359 - Public Water Supply Supervision Program; Program Revision for the State of Alaska | |
| 82 FR 32359 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 32287 - Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Measures for Point Sources | |
| 82 FR 32301 - Approval and Promulgation of Plans for Designated Facilities; New Jersey; Delegation of Authority | |
| 82 FR 32282 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions | |
| 82 FR 32362 - Federal Management Regulation; Effective Federal Warehousing-Notification, Federal Warehousing and Storage of Assets | |
| 82 FR 32305 - Washington: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions | |
| 82 FR 32357 - Notice of EPA's Action To Postpone the Effective Date of the EPA Region 1 Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits for Stormwater Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems in Massachusetts | |
| 82 FR 32242 - Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Miesfeld's Lakeshore Weekend Fireworks; Sheboygan WI | |
| 82 FR 32346 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Renewal of the Disaster Response Cooperative Agreement (DRCA) | |
| 82 FR 32436 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Family Law | |
| 82 FR 32322 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32325 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Wholesale Trade Survey | |
| 82 FR 32281 - Transactions Involving the Transfer of No Net Value | |
| 82 FR 32431 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32437 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB) and Executive Resources Board (ERB) Membership | |
| 82 FR 32329 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery Program | |
| 82 FR 32326 - National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction Meetings | |
| 82 FR 32376 - Softwood Lumber from Canada; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 82 FR 32437 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Richard Bundy | |
| 82 FR 32344 - Receipt of Application | |
| 82 FR 32361 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, July 13 2017 | |
| 82 FR 32263 - Administrative Leave, Investigative Leave, Notice Leave, and Weather and Safety Leave | |
| 82 FR 32381 - NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32441 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 65) | |
| 82 FR 32431 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 32325 - Certain In-Shell (Raw) Pistachios From the Islamic Republic of Iran: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 32355 - North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 32366 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32370 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Catholic Health Initiatives Patient Safety Organization, LLC | |
| 82 FR 32368 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Systematic Review Update | |
| 82 FR 32381 - Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32330 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Site Characterization Surveys off the Coast of New York | |
| 82 FR 32247 - Safety Zone; Cleveland Parade of Lights Boat Parade; Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH | |
| 82 FR 32444 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Vetbiz Vendor Information Pages Verification Program | |
| 82 FR 32318 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for the Biological Control of Swallow-Worts | |
| 82 FR 32317 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment for Release of Three Parasitoids for Biological Control of the Lily Leaf Beetle | |
| 82 FR 32294 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan | |
| 82 FR 32284 - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan; Revision of Federal Implementation Plan | |
| 82 FR 32244 - Safety Zone; Oswego County Paddlefest; Oswego River, Oswego, NY | |
| 82 FR 32362 - RESTORE Act-Draft 2017 Funded Priorities List: Comprehensive Commitment and Planning Support | |
| 82 FR 32439 - Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; Application for Exemption; Rail Delivery Services (RDS); Correction | |
| 82 FR 32246 - Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the Bay Fireworks | |
| 82 FR 32378 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Firearms Transaction Record/Registro de Transaccíon de Armas (ATF Form 4473) (5300.9) | |
| 82 FR 32262 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Sablefish in the Bering Sea Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 32241 - Special Local Regulation; Wheeling Dragon Boat Race, Ohio River Miles 90.4-91.5 | |
| 82 FR 32439 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32372 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 32316 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32349 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, Federal Direct PLUS Loan Request for Supplemental Information | |
| 82 FR 32242 - Safety Zone; Cleveland Triathlon Swim Event; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH | |
| 82 FR 32350 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2017-18 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study Administrative Collection (NPSAS:18-AC) | |
| 82 FR 32353 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Middle Grades Longitudinal Study of 2017-18 (MGLS:2017) Main Study Base Year (MS1), Operational Field Test First Follow-up (OFT2), and Tracking and Recruitment for Main Study First Follow-up (MS2) | |
| 82 FR 32351 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2018-2019 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) | |
| 82 FR 32356 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 32347 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32374 - Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 82 FR 32382 - Lost Creek ISR, LLC, Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, Sweetwater County, Wyoming | |
| 82 FR 32399 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments No. 1, To Adopt the Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements and the Clearing Agency Capital Replenishment Plan | |
| 82 FR 32396 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending NYSE Rule 36 and NYSE MKT Rule 36-Equities To Permit Exchange Floor Brokers To Use Non-Exchange Provided Telephones on the Floor | |
| 82 FR 32413 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Listed Company Manual To Adopt Initial and Continued Listing Standards for Subscription Receipts | |
| 82 FR 32417 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide in Order To Enhance the Memo Segregation Function in Connection With Deliveries Processed at DTC Related to the Direct Registration System | |
| 82 FR 32419 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Consolidated Registration Rules, Restructure the Representative-Level Qualification Examination Program, Allow Permissive Registration, Establish Exam Waiver Process for Persons Working for Financial Services Affiliate of Member, and Amend the Continuing Education Requirements | |
| 82 FR 32386 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt a New Extended Life Priority Order Attribute Under Rule 4703, and To Make Related Changes to Rules 4702, 4752, 4753, 4754, and 4757 | |
| 82 FR 32406 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Require Agents To Use the Automated Tender Offer Program To Process Consent Solicitations for Book-Entry Only Securities | |
| 82 FR 32409 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish Ports and Gateways That Members Use To Connect to the Exchange | |
| 82 FR 32392 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the SPY Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 32415 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the SPY Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 32402 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend IM-3120-2 to Rule 3120 To Extend the Pilot Program That Eliminated the Position Limits for Options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”) (“SPY Pilot Program”) | |
| 82 FR 32404 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the SPY Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 32394 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the SPY Pilot Program | |
| 82 FR 32348 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32357 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process: Walden Hydro, LLC | |
| 82 FR 32356 - Nogales Transmission, L.L.C.; Nogales Frontier Operations, L.L.C.; Notice of Supplement To Petiton for Declaratory Order | |
| 82 FR 32354 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 32354 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 32349 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32377 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 32437 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 32371 - Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry | |
| 82 FR 32345 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 32256 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities | |
| 82 FR 32260 - Review of Foreign Ownership Policies for Broadcast, Common Carrier and Aeronautical Radio Licensees | |
| 82 FR 32372 - Office of the Secretary Amended; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32372 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32371 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32328 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21059 | |
| 82 FR 32379 - Minimum Scheme Requirements To Certify Criminal Justice Restraints Described in NIJ Standard 1001.00 | |
| 82 FR 32438 - Approval of Noise Compatibility Program for Akron-Canton Airport, North Canton, Ohio | |
| 82 FR 32443 - Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms | |
| 82 FR 32328 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20556 | |
| 82 FR 32444 - Departmental Offices; Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
| 82 FR 32386 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 32373 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 32318 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) Program Regulations-Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden | |
| 82 FR 32344 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32312 - World Trade Center Health Program; Petitions 016 and 017-Parkinson's Disease and Parkinsonism, Including Manganese-Induced Parkinsonism; Finding of Insufficient Evidence | |
| 82 FR 32232 - Electronic Information for Cargo Exported From the United States; Technical Amendments | |
| 82 FR 32230 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 32228 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 32227 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy.
Notification of administrative stay.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has postponed the effectiveness of certain provisions of a final rule, published in the
As of July 3, 2017, the effectiveness of certain provisions of 10 CFR 429.16(a)(3)(i) was postponed under 5 U.S.C. 705.
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Phone: (202) 586-9496. Email:
On January 5, 2017, DOE published a final rule (January 2017 final rule) amending the test procedure and certification, compliance, and enforcement provisions for central air conditioners and heat pumps (CAC/HP). 82 FR 1426. Among other changes, the January 2017 final rule added a paragraph at 10 CFR 429.16(a)(3)(i) that requires, among other things: (1) If any of the refrigerants approved for use with an outdoor unit model is HCFC-22 or has a 95 °F midpoint saturation absolute pressure that is +/− 18 percent of the 95 °F saturation absolute pressure for HCFC-22, or if there are no refrigerants designated as approved for use, a manufacturer to determine represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW, OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for, at a minimum, an outdoor unit with no match; and (2) if a model of outdoor unit is not charged with a specified refrigerant from the point of manufacture or if the unit is shipped requiring the addition of more than two pounds of refrigerant to meet the charge required for testing per section 2.2.5 of appendix M or appendix M1 (unless either (a) the factory charge is equal to or greater than 70% of the outdoor unit internal volume times the liquid density of refrigerant at 95 °F or (b) an A2L refrigerant is approved for use and listed in the certification report), a manufacturer to determine represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW, OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for, at a minimum, an outdoor unit with no match.
The original effective date of the January 2017 final rule was February 6, 2017. Subsequently, DOE delayed the effective date of the January 2017 final rule until March 21, 2017 (82 FR 8985), and then further delayed the effective date until July 5, 2017 (82 FR 14425; 82 FR 15457).
On March 3, 2017, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) filed a petition for review of the January 2017 final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. JCI manufactures outdoor units with an approved refrigerant that has a 95 °F midpoint saturation absolute pressure that is +/− 18 percent of the 95 °F saturation absolute pressure for HCFC-22. These same models are also shipped requiring the addition of more than two pounds of refrigerant to meet the charge required for testing per section 2.2.5 of appendix M or appendix M1, and the factory charge is not equal to or greater than 70% of the outdoor unit internal volume times the liquid density of refrigerant at 95 °F. Thus, under either of the two provisions at 10 CFR 429.16(a)(3)(i), these models would need to be tested as outdoor units with no match under appendix M or M1.
On May 31, 2017, JCI requested that DOE grant it an administrative stay pending judicial review of two elements of the January 2017 final rule challenged in the Seventh Circuit case: The requirements that a manufacturer determine represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW, OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for, at a minimum, an outdoor unit with no match, when testing outdoor unit models that are either: (1) Approved for a refrigerant that has a 95 °F midpoint saturation absolute pressure that is +/− 18 percent of the 95 °F saturation absolute pressure for HCFC-22; or (2) shipped requiring the addition of more than two pounds of refrigerant to meet the charge required for testing per section 2.2.5 of appendix M or Appendix M1, and the factory charge is not equal to or greater than 70% of the outdoor unit internal volume times the liquid density of refrigerant at 95 °F. On June 6, 2017, JCI requested that DOE hold its stay request in abeyance, noting that DOE's June 2, 2017, grant of an 180-day extension of the date by which JCI must comply with the two provisions specified above obviated the need for an immediate grant of an administrative stay.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 705), “[w]hen an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.” The result of the issuance of a stay is to leave in place the status quo.
DOE has determined that, during the pendency of the lawsuit brought by JCI, it is in the interests of justice to postpone the effectiveness of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective July 13, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective July 13, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations regarding the requirements to provide data for certain exported cargo to conform to current requirements. Various CBP regulations regarding exported cargo refer to outdated regulations or requirements of the U.S. Census Bureau, including the requirement to submit a paper Shipper's Export Declaration (SED). The U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) have been amended to eliminate the SED and to require that the information that was previously provided on the paper SED be filed electronically through the Automated Export System. This rule amends the CBP regulations to incorporate the current requirements. The rule also makes related conforming changes as well as non-substantive editorial and nomenclature changes.
This final rule is effective on July 13, 2017.
Robert C. Rawls, Branch Chief, Outbound Enforcement and Policy Branch, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 344-2847.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) periodically reviews its regulations to ensure that they are up to date. As explained below, various provisions of the CBP regulations contain references to certain U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) requirements and regulations which are out of date. CBP is updating the regulations so that they conform to current requirements.
In 2008, 2013, and 2016, the Census Bureau issued amendments to the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) codified at 15 CFR part 30 that require exporters to use the Automated Export System (AES) to file export commodity and transportation information, known as Electronic Export Information (EEI), directly with CBP and the Census Bureau.
It should be noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through CBP, collects certain export information under its own authority pursuant to section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210, 116 Stat. 981 (August 6, 2002), as amended, which mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security collect information pertaining to cargo before the cargo is either brought into or sent from the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail or truck).
CBP has determined that it is necessary to update parts 4, 10, 18, 113, 122, 123, 141, 191 and 192 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR parts 4, 10, 18, 113, 122, 123, 141, 191 and 192) to conform them to the Census Bureau's FTR. Accordingly, this rule amends the CBP regulations by incorporating current requirements for the filing of EEI in AES, deleting references to the SED, updating outdated terminology and by making other conforming changes. These changes are discussed in more detail below.
Sections 4.61, 4.63, 4.75, 4.76, 4.81, 4.84 and 4.87 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 4.61, 4.63, 4.75, 4.76, 4.81, 4.84 and 4.87) set forth various requirements pertaining to the exportation of cargo from the United States by vessel. These sections refer to the terms “shipper's
Under the FTR, when an export transaction is exempt or excluded from the requirement to file EEI, or when the EEI has not yet been filed in AES, the exporter must report to CBP the EEI exemption or exclusion legend that indicates the basis for not filing EEI, or must report the EEI filing citation (known as the “proof of filing citation” in the Census Bureau's FTR) to indicate that the EEI has been accepted or the post departure filing citation to indicate that EEI will be filed in AES. Therefore, where appropriate, CBP is replacing the references to the “shipper's export declarations” with “EEI filing citations, exclusions, and/or exemption legends”.
Section 4.63 concerns the outward cargo declaration for vessels. Paragraph (b) provides that if EEI is not required for a shipment, a notation must be made on the outward cargo declaration describing the basis for the exemption. The Census Bureau's FTR, however, requires notations for both exemptions and exclusions.
Section 4.76 sets forth procedures and responsibilities of carriers filing outbound vessel manifest information via the AES. As a result of the elimination of the SED and the new requirement to file EEI electronically, certain procedural language in § 4.76 must be updated. In paragraph (b), the second to last sentence provides that where paper SEDs have been submitted by exporters prior to departure, participant carriers will be responsible for submitting those SEDs to Customs within four (4) business days after the departure of the vessel from each port, unless a different time required is specified by § 4.75 or § 4.84. Because EEI has replaced paper SEDs, exporters are now required to submit to CBP a vessel manifest annotated with proof of EEI filing (as demonstrated by an Internal Transaction Number (ITN) issued by AES upon filing) rather than a paper SED. Therefore, CBP is revising this sentence to read: When the exporter submits Electronic Export Information (EEI) prior to departure, carriers will be responsible for annotating the manifest with the Internal Transaction Number (ITN) without change and submitting the manifest to CBP within four (4) business days after the departure of the vessel from each port unless a different time requirement is specified in § 4.75 or § 4.84. Additionally, CBP is removing the last sentence of § 4.76(b) regarding an alternative procedure for the filing of the paper SED. This procedure is no longer applicable in an environment where paper SEDs are not accepted.
CBP is also amending various sections throughout part 4 to update outdated terminology. These sections are amended by replacing outdated references to “Customs” or “Customs Service” with “CBP”. These amendments are consistent with the transfer of the legacy U.S. Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003 and the subsequent renaming of the agency as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by DHS on March 31, 2007.
CBP is also updating § 4.76(b) which refers to the “AES Trade Interface Requirements (AESTIR) handbook”. The AESTIR handbook is no longer published by CBP. The performance requirements and operational standards required to file EEI are collectively referred to as the AES Trade Interface Requirements and is available on CBP's Web site. Therefore, CBP is removing the word “handbook”. Also in § 4.76(b), CBP is updating CBP's Web site address.
CBP is amending various sections throughout part 4 that refer to the “Census Regulations”, “Bureau of Census Regulations”, “regulations of the Bureau of the Census”, or “Bureau of Trade Census Foreign Trade Statistics (FTSR)”. The 2008 Census Bureau rule mandating the use of AES for all shipments requiring an SED also renamed the regulations under title 15 of the CFR, part 30. They are now referred to as the “Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR)”. Accordingly, CBP is replacing references to “Census Regulations”, “Bureau of Census Regulations”, “regulations of the Bureau of the Census”, or “Bureau of Trade Census Foreign Trade Statistics (FTSR)” with “Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations”.
CBP is amending various sections in part 4 to correct certain outdated citations to the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the CFR. Section 4.61(c) is amended to correct “46 U.S.C. App. 97” to “46 U.S.C. 60106”, “46 U.S.C. App. 98” to “46 U.S.C. 60109”, and “Payment of State and Federal fees and fees due the Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 100)” to “Payment of all legal fees that have accrued on the vessel (46 U.S.C. 60107)”. Section 4.75(a) is amended to correct “46 U.S.C. 91” to “46 U.S.C. 60105.”
CBP is also making certain minor changes in part 4 for clarity and for consistency, including replacing the references to “Form 1302-A” with “Form 1302A” for consistency with CBP's current usage on its forms and replacing the term “port” with “port of lading”. “Port of lading” is the nomenclature used for the sea port where the cargo is loaded on a vessel. Using this term rather than simply “port” clarifies that these regulations are referring to the “port of lading” rather than the “port of discharge,” where the cargo would be unloaded. For stylistic reasons, CBP is also replacing references to “shall” with “must” or “will”, as appropriate.
Section 10.41b of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 10.41b) concerns the requirements for clearance of serially numbered substantial holders or outer containers. Paragraph (g)(2) provides that nothing in the procedure described by § 10.41b will be deemed to affect the requirements of the Department of Commerce on exportation with respect to the filing of “ `Shipper's Export
Sections 18.42 and 18.43 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 18.42 and 18.43) set forth exportation requirements for merchandise exported under cover of a TIR (Transport International Routier) carnet. Section 18.42 covers the requirements for direct exportation and section 18.43 covers the requirements for indirect exportation. In these sections, CBP is replacing references to “export declarations” with “Electronic Export Information (EEI)” to conform to the revised FTR. CBP is also replacing references to “Bureau of the Census” with “Census Bureau” for consistency with other CBP regulations. For stylistic reasons, CBP is also replacing references to “shall” with “must” or “will”, as appropriate.
Section 113.64 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 113.64) sets forth international carrier bond conditions. Paragraph (i) relates to the agreement by carriers to deliver export documents to CBP and provides for the payment of liquidated damages if the agreement is not adhered to. The specified liquidated damage amounts reflect the amounts in the former Census Bureau regulation, § 30.24(a), later redesignated § 30.47(b). These amounts were increased by the 2008 Census Bureau rule. CBP is changing the specified liquidated damages amounts to conform to the Census Bureau's FTR.
Sections 122.71, 122.72, 122.73, 122.74, 122.75, 122.76, and 122.79 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 122.71, 122.72, 122.73, 122.74, 122.75, 122.76, and 122.79) set forth departure clearance requirements for aircraft, as well as electronic manifest requirements for passengers, crew members, and non-crew members onboard commercial aircraft departing from the United States. Section 122.143 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 122.143) concerns flights from the U.S. to the U.S. Virgin Islands. In these sections, CBP is replacing references to “shipper's export declarations” or variations thereof with “Electronic Export Information (EEI)” or “EEI”, as appropriate. In certain cases, however, CBP is replacing the references to the “shipper's export declarations” or variations thereof with “Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing citations, exclusions, and/or exemption legends” or variations thereof, when the context of the reference indicates that the exporter may file with CBP the EEI exemption or exclusion legend when an export transaction is exempt or excluded from the requirement or when EEI has not yet been filed in AES.
Section 122.74 sets forth the conditions under which an aircraft bound for a foreign location may receive permission by CBP to depart before a complete manifest or all required EEI have been filed. In addition to the revisions described in the paragraph above, CBP is amending this section to eliminate the hanging text following paragraph (b)(2). CBP is revising paragraph (b) to move the hanging text to the introductory paragraph of paragraph (b) to improve clarity.
Section 122.75 sets forth the requirements for a complete air cargo manifest. Paragraph (a)(2) specifies the procedures applicable to direct departures of shipments requiring a shipper's export declaration. CBP is amending this paragraph so that it conforms to the Census Bureau's FTR requirements. Specifically, CBP is revising the language in paragraph (a)(2) to allow the “EEI filing citation” to be listed on the air cargo manifest in the column for air waybill numbers instead of “the number of each declaration”. CBP is also revising paragraph (a)(2) to require the statement “Electronic Information Annotated” to appear on the manifest instead of “Cargo as per Export Declarations Attached”.
CBP is also making other non-substantive changes to sections in part 122. In various sections throughout part 122, CBP is replacing outdated references to “Customs” with “CBP”. In § 122.143(b), CBP is replacing a reference to “Bureau of the Census” with “Census Bureau” for consistency and a reference to “Bureau of the Census regulations” with “Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations” or variations thereof to conform with the revised Census Bureau's FTR. In § 122.143(b)(2), CBP is updating an outdated citation to the FTR. CBP is also making certain minor changes in part 122 for clarity and/or for consistency, including replacing references to “U.S.” to “United States” when not used as a modifier to conform to the U.S. Government Printing Office's Style Manual. For stylistic reasons, CBP is also replacing references to “shall” with “must” or “will”, as appropriate.
Section 123.28 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 123.28) concerns merchandise remaining in or exported to Canada or Mexico. In paragraph (a), CBP is replacing an outdated reference to “U.S. Customs” with “CBP”. In paragraph (b), CBP is replacing a reference to “shipper's export declaration” with “Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing citation, exclusions, and/or exemption legends” to conform to the revised FTR. For stylistic reasons, CBP is also replacing references to “shall” with “must” or “will”, as appropriate.
Section 141.43 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 141.43) concerns delegation to subagents. CBP is revising the phrase “executing shippers' export declarations” to read “filing Electronic Export Information (EEI)” to conform to the revised FTR.
Section 191.51 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 191.51) pertains to the completion of drawback claims. In paragraph (c)(3), CBP is replacing references to “Shipper's Export Declaration(s) (SEDs)” and “SED” with “Electronic Export Information (EEI)” and “EEI”, respectively, to conform to the revised FTR. For stylistic reasons, CBP is also replacing references to “shall” with “must” or “will”, as appropriate. CBP is also making a few editorial changes.
Sections 192.0, 192.11, 192.12, 192.13, and 192.14 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 192.0, 192.11, 192.12, 192.13, and 192.14) concern export control, including the filing of export information through AES.
Section 192.0 sets forth the scope of the regulations in part 192. CBP is amending this section to replace outdated references to “Customs” with “CBP”. CBP is also revising an outdated citation to the “Census Regulations at part 30, subpart E (15 CFR part 30, subpart E)” to read “Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) of the Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, at part 30, subpart A (15 CFR part 30, subpart A)”.
Section 192.11 sets forth a description of AES. CBP is revising this section to conform to the definition of AES contained in the revised FTR, codified at 15 CFR 30.1(c). The changes generally reflect that AES is no longer a voluntary program, and that EEI must be filed through AES. CBP is also updating the citation to the Census Bureau regulations so that it references the proper section in the FTR that describes the procedures for obtaining certification as an AES filer and for applying for authorization to file on a post-departure basis.
Section 192.12 sets forth the criteria for the denial of applications requesting AES post-departure (Option 4) filing status and appeal procedures and § 192.13 sets forth the reasons why CBP may revoke a participant's AES post-departure filing and the revocation and appeal procedures. CBP is currently working on substantive revisions to these sections (which will include the appropriate technical amendments) and is therefore not amending these sections at this time.
Section 192.14 sets forth the procedures for filing EEI required in advance of departure. CBP is making revisions to this section to conform to the electronic filing requirements of EEI contained in the revised FTR. Throughout § 192.14, CBP is adding references to the “authorized filing agent of the Foreign Principal Party in Interest (FPPI)” (or “FPPI's authorized filing agent”) where appropriate to clarify that this party, in addition to the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) or its authorized agent, is authorized to file any required EEI under 15 CFR 30.2. CBP is also replacing all references to “cargo information” or variations thereof with “Electronic Export Information (EEI)” or “EEI”, as appropriate.
In the heading for § 192.14(b), CBP is replacing “Presentation of data” with “Transmission of data” to reflect the electronic submission of export information. In paragraph (b)(1), regarding the time for transmission of the data, CBP is updating the heading and contents to conform to the FTR. The heading is changed from “Time for presenting data” to “Time for transmission of EEI” and the paragraph now conforms to the requirements of the Census Bureau's FTR, specifying that the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must “have received the AES Internal Transaction Number (ITN)” for outbound cargo no later than the time specified in the subsequent paragraphs. In paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv), which specify the relevant time frames for the USPPI or the authorized agent to transmit the data for vessel, air, truck and rail cargo, respectively, CBP is rewording these provisions to conform to the FTR by requiring the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent to “provide the EEI filing citation (the ITN), exclusion, and/or exemption legend to the exporting carrier” no later than the time specified in that paragraph. In new paragraph (b)(1)(v), CBP is providing the applicable time frame for the transmission of EEI for shipments of used self-propelled vehicles to conform with § 30.4(b)(5) of the Census Bureau's FTR (15 CFR 30.4). Finally, in new paragraph (b)(1)(vi), CBP is providing the public with a reference to the applicable sections of the Census Bureau's FTR that provide time frames for the transmission of EEI for cargo shipped by pipeline.
In paragraph (b)(2) of § 192.14, CBP is making certain revisions for clarity and to remove outdated language. Among other things, CBP is removing the sentence that references “[p]aragraph (e)” because paragraph (e) of § 192.14 was removed in a prior amendment to the regulation. In paragraph (b)(3), CBP is renaming the heading “System verification of data acceptance” to “System verification of data acceptance or rejection” to better describe the content of the paragraph, replacing certain outdated language, and revising the description of the ITN.
In paragraph (c) of § 192.14, CBP is changing the heading “Information required” to “EEI required” to clarify that all the information listed in paragraph (c) is required EEI.
In paragraph (c)(1) of § 192.14, CBP is changing the heading “Currently collected commodity data” to “Commodity data” to be more concise. CBP is removing the first two sentences of this paragraph because the reference to the SED is outdated and these sentences are redundant and unnecessary. CBP is replacing the phrase “export cargo data elements” with “commodity data elements” for consistency with the heading. CBP is also updating citations to the revised FTR.
In paragraph (c)(2) of § 192.14, under the heading “Transportation data”, CBP is revising outdated language to clarify that these data elements must be reported electronically through the approved system and can be found in § 30.6 of the Census Bureau's FTR.
In paragraph (c)(3) of § 192.14, CBP is replacing the phrase “outbound carrier” with “exporting carrier” for clarity. CBP is also revising the sentence requiring the exporter to furnish proof to the exporting carrier of an “electronic filing citation (the ITN), low-risk exporter citation (currently, the Option 4 filing citation), or exemption statement” to read “EEI filing citation (the ITN), post-departure citation, AES downtime filing citation (when allowed), exclusion, and/or exemption legends (see paragraph (d) of this section)”. This revision is necessary to include a greater range of EEI filing citation, exclusion and/or exemption legends that may be furnished to the exporting carrier and that are acceptable to CBP under Appendix B to the Census Bureau's FTR (15 CFR part 30, Appendix B). The last sentence of paragraph (c)(3) is revised similarly to include the citations and legends referenced above and also to update the reference to the revised FTR.
In paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5) and (d) of § 192.14, CBP is revising certain language and terminology for consistency and clarity. Among other changes, CBP is replacing the phrase “exemption statement” with “exemption legend”; “Bureau of Census” with “Census Bureau”; and “departed” with “been exported” in reference to high risk cargo that has been transported from the United States. CBP also added relevant citations to the sections in the Census Bureau's FTR providing exemptions from reporting requirements for export cargo.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), CBP has determined for good cause that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay publication of this rule in final form pending an opportunity for public comment because the technical amendments set forth in this document merely conform the CBP regulations to existing law and regulations. In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP has determined that there is good cause for this final rule to become effective immediately upon publication for the same reasons.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This final rule is a technical amendment and as previously discussed, it amends outdated CBP regulations to incorporate the current requirements. The final rule also makes related conforming changes as well as non-substantive editorial and nomenclature changes. CBP does not believe this rule imposes additional costs on industry or government.
Because this document is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This document is limited to technical corrections of the CBP regulations. Accordingly, it is being signed under the authority of 19 CFR 0.1(b)(1).
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Harbors, Maritime carriers, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Bonds, Caribbean Basin initiative, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Common carriers, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Cigars and cigarettes, Cuba, Customs duties and inspection, Drug traffic control, Freight, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Canada, Customs duties and inspection, Freight, International boundaries, Mexico, Motor carriers, Railroads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trade agreements.
Aircraft, Exports, Motor vehicles, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
For the reasons set forth above, parts 4, 10, 18, 113, 122, 123, 141, 191, and 192 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR parts 4, 10, 18, 113, 122, 123, 141, 191, and 192) are amended as set forth below.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1624, 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 501, 60105.
Section 4.75 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 60105;
Section 4.84 also issued under 46 U.S.C. 12118;
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Except as hereafter stated, the Internal Transaction Number (ITN) of the Electronic Export Information (EEI) covering each shipment for which EEI is required must be shown on the Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms, CBP Form 1302A, in the
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(b)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1551, 1552, 1553, 1623, 1624.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(2) If the aircraft is departing on a flight from the U.S. directly or indirectly to a foreign country listed in § 4.75 of this chapter.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(a)
(b)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1624, 2071 note.
Sections 123.21-123.23, 123.25-123.29, 123.41, 123.51 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1554.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1498, 1624.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1313, 1624;
(c) * * *
(3)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1624, 1646c. Subpart A also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1627a, 1646a, 1646b; subpart B also issued under 13 U.S.C. 303; 19 U.S.C. 2071 note; 46 U.S.C. 91.
The Automated Export System (AES) is the information system for collecting Electronic Export Information (EEI) from persons exporting goods from the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands; between Puerto Rico and the United States; and to the U.S. Virgin Islands from the United States or Puerto Rico. Pursuant to the Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), all commodity export information for which EEI is required must be filed through the AES. This system is the CBP-approved electronic data interchange system used for purposes of filing EEI as required by § 192.14. AES is also the system by which certain sea carriers may report required outbound vessel information electronically (
(a)
(b)
(i) For vessel cargo, the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must provide the EEI filing citation (the ITN), exclusion, and/or exemption legend to the exporting carrier no later than 24 hours prior to loading cargo on the vessel at the U.S. port of lading;
(ii) For air cargo, including cargo being transported by air express couriers, the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must provide the EEI filing citation (the ITN), exclusion, and/or exemption legend to the exporting carrier no later than 2 hours prior to the scheduled departure time of the aircraft from the U.S. port of export;
(iii) For truck cargo, including cargo departing by express consignment courier, the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must provide the EEI filing citation (the ITN), exclusion, and/or exemption legend to the exporting carrier no later than 1 hour prior to the arrival of the truck at the border;
(iv) For rail cargo, the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must provide the EEI filing citation (the ITN), exclusion, and/or exemption legend to the exporting carrier no later than 2 hours prior to the arrival of the train at the border;
(v) For shipments of used self-propelled vehicles as defined in § 192.1, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must provide the EEI filing citation (the ITN), exclusion, and/or exemption legend to the exporting carrier at least 72 hours prior to export; and
(vi) For cargo shipped by pipeline, the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent should refer to § 30.4 of the Census Bureau's FTR (15 CFR 30.4, 30.46) for applicable time frames for the transmission of EEI.
(2)
(3)
(c)
(2)
(i) Method of transportation (the method of transportation is defined as
(ii) Carrier identification (for vessel, rail and truck shipments, the unique carrier identifier is the 4-character Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC); for aircraft, the carrier identifier is the 2- or 3-character International Air Transport Association (IATA) code);
(iii) Conveyance name (the conveyance name is the name of the carrier; for sea carriers, this is the name of the vessel; for others, the carrier name);
(iv) Country of ultimate destination (this is the country as known to the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent at the time of exportation, where the cargo is to be consumed or further processed or manufactured; this country would be identified by the 2-character International Standards Organization (ISO) code for the country of ultimate destination);
(v) Date of export (the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must report the date the cargo is scheduled to leave the United States for all modes of transportation; if the actual date is not known, the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must report the best estimate as to the time of departure); and
(vi) Port of export (the port where the outbound cargo departs from the United States is designated by its unique code, as set forth in Annex C, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent must report the port of exportation as known when the USPPI, USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent tenders the cargo to the outbound carrier; should the carrier export the cargo from a different port and the carrier so informs the USPPI, the USPPI's authorized agent, or the FPPI's authorized filing agent, the port of exportation must be corrected by the filer in AES.).
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation during the Wheeling Dragon Boat Race on the Ohio River, from miles 90.4 to 91.5, for all navigable waters of the river. This regulation is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the Wheeling Dragon Boat Race. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the regulated area is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in the first table in 33 CFR 100.801, No. 30 will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., August 26, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Charles Morris, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the annual Wheeling Dragon Boat Race in the first table of 33 CFR 100.801, No. 30 from 7:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., August 26, 2017. Entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Miesfeld's Lakeshore Weekend fireworks display on Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin in the vicinity of the south pier, from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 28, 2017. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and after the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (e)(49), Table 165.929, from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 28, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Kaleena Carpino, Marine Event Coordinator, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI; telephone (414) 747-7148, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Miesfeld's Lakeshore Weekend fireworks display safety zone listed as item (e)(49) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 28, 2017. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone; this event is listed in the annual section, however it will occur on a different date than listed this year. It is listed in 33 CFR 165.929 to be held on July 29th, but will be held July 28th at the request of the event organizer. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Menominee River within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the approximate position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.967′ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie at North Coast Harbor, Cleveland, OH during the Cleveland Triathlon swim event on July 23, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the navigational hazards associated with the large scale swimming event. 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 5:45 a.m. through 10:00 a.m. on July 23, 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 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. The event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying this rulemaking to allow for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard 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, NY (COTP) has determined that a large scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the Cleveland Triathlon.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 5:45 a.m. through 10 a.m. on July 23, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 feet of a line starting at position 41°30′34.6″ N., 081°41′51.3″ W. extending in a straight line to the East Basin Breakwall at position 41°30′51.8″ N., 081°42′08.5″ 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, this 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 reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under 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 approximately 4 hours 15 minutes that will prohibit entry within all navigable waters in the vicinity of the swimmers participating in the Cleveland Triathlon. 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 shall 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 the Oswego River, Oswego, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Oswego River during the Oswego County Paddlefest on July 22, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a large scale paddle event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 7:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. on July 22, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email 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. The event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to 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 large scale paddle event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard 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 large scale paddle event presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include a large number of paddle craft transiting a relatively narrow river. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the paddle event is taking place.
This rule establishes a moving safety zone on July 22, 2017 from 7:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Oswego River and Oswego Harbor contained within a 150 foot radius around groups of participant paddle craft starting at position 43°20′05.3″ N., 076°24′58.8″ W. and traveling northwest to position 43°27′44.2″ N. 076°30′54.9″ 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 Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
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 only be enforced in the vicinity of paddle craft groups and has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within the particular areas 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 reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under 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
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 establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the Bay Fireworks on the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal in Sturgeon Bay, WI from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on August 12, 2017. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and after the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for the safety zone listed in item (f)(4) of Table 165.929 from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on August 12, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email marine event coordinator, MST1 Kaleena Carpino, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI; telephone (414) 747-7148, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club Evening on the Bay Fireworks safety zone listed as item (f)(4) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on August 12, 2017 on all waters of the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from a center point launch position at 44°49.297′ N., 087°21.447′ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a representative may be contacted at 414-747-7182 or via Channel 16, VHF-FM.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a moving safety zone for certain waters of the Cuyahoga River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters in the Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH during the Cleveland Parade of Lights on July 22, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards created by 60 vessels transiting in the river with lights not normally used for marine traffic navigation lights. 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 10:00 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 22, 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 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. The event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to 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 boat parade.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard 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, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with 60 vessels displaying lights that are not used for navigation will be a safety concern for other vessels underway. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the Cleveland Parade of Lights.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 22, 2017. The moving safety zone will encompass all waters within 25 feet of the vessels participating in the Cleveland Parade of Lights in the Cuyahoga River. The safety zone will move with participating vessels as they transit from the mouth of the Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of position 41°29′59″ N., 081°43′31″ W., to Merwin's Wharf in the vicinity of 41°29′23″ N., 081°42′16″ W., and returning to the mouth of the Old River at 41°29′55″ N., 081°42′18″ 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, this 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,
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under 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 one and a half hours that will prohibit entry within a small area of the Cuyahoga River. 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 shall 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The State of Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this direct final action. In the “Proposed Rules” section of this
This final authorization is effective on September 11, 2017 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by August 14, 2017. If the EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You can view and copy Oklahoma's application and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following locations: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677, (405) 702-7180 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, Permit Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, (214) 665-8533, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas Texas 75202-2733, and Email address
States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates
On November 1, 2015, the ODEQ submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to Federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 (RCRA Cluster XXIII). The EPA concludes that Oklahoma's application to revise its authorized program meets all of of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant ODEQ final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. ODEQ has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders. Also, section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (“SAFETEA”), Public Law 109-59, 119 Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of Oklahoma opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA Subtitle C in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Oklahoma including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Oklahoma subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. ODEQ has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits, and
• take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which ODEQ is being authorized by this direct action is already effective under State law, and are not changed by this action.
The EPA did not publish a proposal before this rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
ODEQ initially received final authorization on January 10, 1985 (49 FR 50362-50363), published December 27, 1984, to implement its base hazardous waste management program. We authorized the following revisions: ODEQ received authorization for revisions to its program with publication dates: April 17, 1990 (55 FR 14280-14282), effective June 18, 1990; September 26, 1990 (55 FR 39274), effective November 27, 1990; April 2, 1991 (56 FR 13411-13413), effective June 3, 1991; September 20, 1991 (56 FR 47675-47677), effective November 19, 1991; September 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854-50856), effective November 29, 1993; October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52679-52682), effective December 13, 1993; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51116-51122), effective December 21, 1994; January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2699-2702), effective April 27, 1995; October 9, 1996 (61 FR 52884-52886), effective December 23, 1996; Technical Correction March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100-12101), effective March 14, 1997; September 22, 1998 (63 FR 50528-50531), effective November 23, 1998; March 29, 2000 (65 FR 16528-16532), effective May 30, 2000; May 10, 2000 (65 FR 29981-29985), effective June 10, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 28-33), effective March 5, 2001; April 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308-17311), effective June 9, 2003; February 4, 2009 (74 FR 5994-6001), effective April 6, 2009; April 6, 2011 (76 FR 18927-18930), effective June 6, 2011; March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15273-15276), effective May 14, 2012; May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161-32165), effective July 29, 2013; and August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51497-51500), effective October 28, 2014. The authorized Oklahoma RCRA program was incorporated by reference into the CFR published on October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52679-52682), effective December 13, 1993; April 30, 1998 (63 FR 23673-23678), effective July 14, 1998; August 26, 1999 (64 FR 46567-46571), effective October 25, 1999; August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51488-51492), effective October 27, 2003; June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36546-36550), effective August 27, 2010; May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29231-29235), effective July 16, 2012; August 7, 2012, (77 FR 46964-46968), effective October 9, 2012; and July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37226-37230), effective September 2, 2014. On November 1, 2015, ODEQ submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
The Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act (OHWMA) provides the ODEQ with the authority to administer the State Program, including the statutory and regulatory provisions necessary to administer the provisions of RCRA Cluster XXIII, and designates the ODEQ as the State agency to cooperate and share information with EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation. The Oklahoma
The Oklahoma Legislature in April of 2015 amended the OHWMA by passing 27A O.S. § 2-7-116(H), which clarified that the temporary staging of hazardous waste in a permitted hazardous waste unit while the waste was undergoing analysis to determine that the waste is acceptable for disposal does not constitute disposal of the waste. This new provision, effecting what constitutes disposal in Oklahoma, has not been submitted for EPA review and we are taking no action on it in this rulemaking.
The ODEQ adopted applicable federal hazardous waste regulations as amended through July 1, 2014. The regulatory amendment implementing this adoption by reference has an effective date of September 15, 2015. The provisions for which the State of Oklahoma is seeking authorization are documented in the
The ODEQ incorporates the Federal Regulations by reference and there have been no changes in State or Federal laws or regulations that have diminished the ODEQ's ability to adopt the Federal regulations by reference. The Federal hazardous waste regulations are adopted by reference by the ODEQ at OAC 252:205, Subchapter 3. The ODEQ does not adopt Federal regulations prospectively.
The State Hazardous waste management program (“State Program”) now has in place, the statutory authority and regulations for all required components of federal regulations adopted in Checklists 229, 230, 231 and 232 in RCRA Cluster XXIII. These statutory and regulatory provisions were developed to ensure the State program is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal Hazardous waste management program.
The Environmental Quality Act, at 27A O.S. Section 1-3-101(E), grants the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) authority to regulate certain aspects of the oil and gas production and transportation industry in Oklahoma, including certain wastes generated by pipelines, bulk fuel sales terminals and certain tank farms, as well as, underground storage tanks. To clarify areas of environmental jurisdiction, the ODEQ and OCC developed an ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional Guidance Document to identify respective areas of jurisdiction. The current ODEQ/OCC jurisdictional Guidance Document was amended and signed on January 27, 1999. The revisions to the State Program necessary to administer Cluster XXIII will not affect the jurisdictional authorities of the ODEQ or OCC.
The ODEQ adopted RCRA Cluster XXIII applicable federal hazardous waste regulations as amended July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and became effective on September 15, 2015. The rules were also codified at OAC 252 Chapter 205.
Pursuant to OAC 252:205-3-2, the State's incorporation of Federal regulations does not incorporate prospectively future changes to the incorporated sections of the 40 CFR, and no other Oklahoma law or regulation reduces the scope of coverage or otherwise affects the authority provided by these incorporated-by-reference provisions. Further, Oklahoma interprets these incorporated provisions to provide identical authority to the Federal provisions. Thus, OAC Title 252, Chapter 205 provides equivalent and no less stringent authority than the Federal Subtitle C program in effect July 1, 2014. The State of Oklahoma incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR part 124 that are required by 40 CFR 271.14 (with the addition of 40 CFR 124.19(a) through (c), 124.19(e), 124.31, 124.32, 124.33 and subpart G); 40 CFR parts 260 through 268 [with the exception of 260.21, 262 subparts E and H, 264.1(f), 264.1(g)(12), 264.149, 264.150, 264.301(1), 264.1030(d), 264.1050(g), 264.1080(e), 264.1080(f), 264.1080(g), 265.1(c)(4), 265.1(g)(12), 265.149, 265.150, 265.1030(c), 265.1050(f) 265.1080(e), 265.1080(f), 265.1080(g), 268.5, 268.6, 268.13, 268.42(b), and 268.44(a) through (g)]; 40 CFR part 270 [with the exception of 270.1(c)(2)(ix) and 270.14(b)(18)]; 40 CFR part 273; and 40 CFR part 279.
The ODEQ is the lead Department to cooperate and share information with the EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation.
Pursuant to 27A O.S. Section 2-7-104, the Executive Director has created the Land Protection Division (LPD) to be responsible for implementing the State Program. The LPD is staffed with personnel that have the technical background and expertise to effectively implement the provisions of the State program Subtitle C Hazardous waste management program.
On November 1, 2015, the ODEQ submitted final complete program applications seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that the ODEQ's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. The ODEQ revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated between July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 (RCRA Cluster XXIII). The ODEQ requirements are included in a chart within this document.
There are no State requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.
ODEQ will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Oklahoma is not yet authorized.
Section 8 U.S.C. 1151 does not affect the State of Oklahoma because under section 10211(a) of the SAFETEA, Public Law 109-59, 119 Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of Oklahoma opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA Subtitle C in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the HSWA.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart LL for this authorization of ODEQ's program changes until a later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. The reference to Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) is also exempt from review under Executive orders 12866 (56 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The State of Louisiana has applied to the EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this direct final action. The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Louisiana's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the
This final authorization will become effective on September 11, 2017 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by August 14, 2017. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Alima Patterson, Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permit Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, (214) 665-8533, EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and email address
States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
On August 5, 2016, the State of Louisiana submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated between February 14, 2014 and June 26, 2014, RCRA Cluster XXIII (Checklists 231 and 232). The EPA concludes that Louisiana's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, the EPA grants Louisiana final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application, and as outlined below in Section G of this document. The State of Louisiana has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), as discussed above. New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Louisiana, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Louisiana subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Louisiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits, and
• take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Louisiana is being authorized by today's action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by today's action.
Along with this direct final rule, the EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now, as described in Section E of this document.
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a document in the
If EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, EPA will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified in this document. The
The State of Louisiana initially received final authorization on February 7, 1985, (50 FR 3348), to implement its base Hazardous Waste Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48889), effective January 29, 1990; August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41958), as corrected October 15, 1991 (56 FR 51762), effective October 25, 1991; November 7, 1994 (59 FR 55368), effective January 23, 1995 (Note: on January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4380), the EPA responded to public adverse comments and affirmed the effective date for the November 7, 1994 final rule). Then on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18360), the EPA also made administrative corrections for the January 23, 1995
Since 1979, through the Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 enabled the Office of Environmental Affairs within the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, as well as, the Environmental Control Commission to conduct an effective program designed to regulate those who generate, transport, treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous waste. During the 1983 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, Act 97 was adopted, which amended and reenacted La. R. S. 30:1051
It is the intention of the State, through this application, to demonstrate its equivalence and consistency with the federal statutory tests, which are outlined in the United States EPA regulatory requirements under 40 CFR part 271 for final authorization. The submittal of this application is in keeping with the spirit and intent of RCRA, which provides equivalent States the opportunity to apply for final delegation to operate all aspects of their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the federal government. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act authorizes the State's program, Subtitle II of Title 30 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. The State's program is equivalent and consistent with the federal program, as outlined in revision checklists 231 and 232, which were adopted and became effective on April 20, 2016.
On August 5, 2016, Louisiana submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization for their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Louisiana's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant the State of Louisiana Final authorization for the following changes. The State of Louisiana's program revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Revision Checklists 231 and 232 in RCRA Cluster XXIII as documented in this
The State of Louisiana regulations listed in this
The Federal Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Rule (79 FR 7518; February 7, 2014) contains several provisions which are non-delegable to States. Specifically, States cannot receive authorization to establish a Federal user under the electronic manifest requirements, nor can States receive authorization for the electronic signature requirements, resulting in the States' inability to implement the provisions listed below. However, EPA strongly recommends States adopt these provisions while retaining the EPA rule language unchanged; Louisiana has adopted the Electronic Manifest Rule using this approach. The non-delegable provisions and provisions where States must retain references to “EPA” are: 40 CFR 260.10 “electronic manifest”, “electronic manifest system”, “use of the electronic manifest system”; 262.24(g); 262.25; 263.20(a)(2); 262.20(a)(3)(ii); 263.20(a)(8); 264.71(a)(2)(v); 264.71(j); 265.71(a)(2)(v); and 265.71(j).
The State of Louisiana will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. EPA will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the chart in this document after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which LDEQ is not yet authorized.
Louisiana is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste Program in Indian Country within the State. This authority remains with EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272 subpart T for this authorization of Louisiana's program changes until a later date. In this authorization application, the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action (RCRA State Authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization, as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction and correcting amendment.
In the October 4, 2016 issue of the
This document is effective July 13, 2017.
Ronisha Blackstone, (410) 786-6882.
In FR Doc. 2016-23503 which appeared in the October 4, 2016
We inadvertently made technical and typographical errors in the preamble as follows:
On page 68725, fourth full paragraph of the second column, we inadvertently referenced proposed § 482.11 instead of proposed § 483.11.
On page 68729, second paragraph of the third column, we inadvertently referenced § 482.15(a) instead of § 483.15(a).
On page 68736, second full paragraph of the second column, we inadvertently referenced § 482.20(k)(4) instead of § 483.20(k)(4).
Under the Implementation Timeframe table we made technical and typographical errors as follows:
On page 68696, under § 483.12, we inadvertently referenced the “Coordination with QAPI Plan” instead of the “Coordination with QAPI Program.” We are correcting this error to clarify that the Coordination with QAPI Program will be implemented in Phase 3.
On page 68697, we inadvertently designated existing requirements at § 483.45(e)(1) and (2) to be implemented in the second phase of the implementation schedule. Requirements at § 483.45(e)(1) and (2) are redesignations and do not reflect a change in policy. We indicated in the final rule (81 FR 68696) that the first phase of implementation will include those requirements that were unchanged or received only minor modification. Therefore, we are correcting the exceptions to the Phase 1 implementation deadlines to specify that the requirements at § 483.45(e)(3), (4), and (5) Psychotropic drugs will be implemented in Phase 2.
On page 68697, we inadvertently designated existing requirements at § 483.75(g)(2)(i) and (ii) to be implemented in the third phase of the implementation schedule. Requirements at § 483.75(g)(2)(i) and (ii) are redesignations and do not reflect a change in policy. We indicated in the final rule (81 FR 68696) that the first phase of implementation will include those requirements that were unchanged or received only minor modification. Therefore, we are correcting the exceptions to the Phase 3 implementation deadlines under “§ 483.75—Quality assurance and performance improvement” by replacing the paragraph designation (g)(1) with (g), subparagraph designation (iv) with (g)(1)(iv), and clarifying that (g)(2)(iii) will also be implemented in Phase 3. Also, we are correcting the acronym “ICPO” to read “IP.”
On page 68847, we inadvertently omitted a conforming change to revise cross-references to part 483 found in part 409. Sections 409.20 and 409.26 include incorrect cross-references to § 483.75(n). We inadvertently did not update these cross-references. Therefore, we are revising § 409.20 and § 409.26 to correct the cross-reference by replacing § 483.75(n) with § 483.70(j).
On page 68847, we made technical errors in the regulations text for § 482.58. We inadvertently used the cross-references from the proposed rule “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities” (80 FR 42246) rather than the final rule. We are revising § 482.58 to correct the cross-references. As we noted in the proposed rule, the revised citations correspond to cross-references previously set out at § 482.58 and make no substantive policy changes.
On page 68848, we made technical errors in the regulations text of § 483.5. We inadvertently omitted a conforming change to revise cross-references in the definitions of “composite distinct part” and “distinct part.” We are revising the definition of “composite distinct part” and the definition for “distinct part.” We made no substantive changes.
On page 68854, we inadvertently designated a cross-reference at § 483.10(i)(4), and on pages 68856 and 68857, we inadvertently designated cross-references at § 483.15(a) through (d).
On page 68856, we made a technical error in the regulations text of § 483.15(c)(2)(iii)(F). We inadvertently omitted the apostrophe from the word “resident's.”
On page 68863, we made a technical error in the amendatory instruction for § 483.45. We set out the regulatory text for paragraph (c)(5) but inadvertently omitted the instruction to add paragraph (c)(5) as a new paragraph. We are revising § 483.45 by adding an instruction to add paragraph (c)(5).
On page 68863, we made a technical error in the regulations text of § 483.50(a)(2)(iii). We inadvertently misspelled the word “assistance.”
On page 68865, we made a technical error in the amendatory instruction for § 483.70(i), in which we inadvertently omitted the instruction to revise the paragraph heading for paragraph (i). We are inserting this instruction in this final rule.
On page 68868, we made a technical error in the regulations text for § 483.75(g)(1)(iv). In the preamble of the final rule (81 FR 68812), we indicated that in § 483.80(b) we were changing our use of “infection control and prevention officer (ICPO)” to “infection preventionist (IP).” Section 483.75(g)(1)(iv) also uses the term “infection control and prevention officer.” We are revising § 483.75(g)(1)(iv) by replacing the phrase “infection control and prevention officer” with “infection preventionist.”
On page 68869, we made a technical error in the regulations text for § 483.85(b). We incorrectly indicated that the operating organization for each facility must have in operation a compliance and ethics program by November 28, 2017. In the final rule (81 FR 68697) we indicated that all the requirements in § 483.85 would be implemented in Phase 3 (November 28, 2019). Therefore, we are revising paragraph § 483.85(b) to accurately indicate that the operating organization for each facility must have in operation a compliance and ethics program by November 28, 2019 and removing the reference to November 28, 2017.
On page 68870, we made technical errors in the regulations text for § 483.90. We incorrectly designated paragraph § 483.90(d) as (c), which resulted in the omission of existing requirements at § 483.90(c) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). We are
On page 68871, we made a technical error in the amendatory instruction for § 485.635. We incorrectly revised the cross-reference to § 483.25(i) in § 485.635(a)(3)(vii). We are revising § 485.635 to correct the cross-reference by replacing the reference to “§ 483.25(d)(8)” with “§ 483.25(g.)”
On page 68871, we made technical errors in the regulations text for § 485.645. We inadvertently used the cross-references from the proposed rule “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities (80 FR 42269) rather than the final rule. We are revising § 485.645 to correct the cross-references. As we noted in the proposed rule, the revised citations correspond to cross-references previously set out at § 485.645 and make no substantive policy changes.
On page 68871, we made a technical error in the regulations text for § 488.56. Section 488.56(b) and (b)(2) include incorrect cross-references to § 488.75(i). We inadvertently did not update these cross-references. Therefore, we are revising § 488.56 to correct the cross-reference by replacing § 488.75(i) with § 483.70(h).
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the
Our revisions to the requirements for Long-Term Care (LTC) facilities found in part 483 subpart B have previously been subjected to notice and comment procedures. These corrections are consistent with the discussion of the policy in the October 2016 final rule and do not make substantive changes to this policy. This correcting amendment merely corrects technical errors in the regulations text of the October 2016 final rule and makes no substantive policy changes. As a result, this correcting amendment is intended to ensure that the October 2016 final rule accurately reflects the policy adopted in the final rule. Therefore, we find that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate these corrections into the final rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
For the same reasons, we are also waiving the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment. We believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that the October 2016 final rule accurately reflect our revisions to the requirements for LTC facilities. Delaying the effective date of these corrections would be contrary to the public interest. Therefore, we also find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.
a. On page 68725, in second column; in the fourth paragraph, line 21 remove “482.11” and add in its place “483.11”.
b. On page 68729, in the third column; in the second paragraph, line 11 remove “482.15(a)” and add in its place “483.15(a)”.
c. On page 68736, in the second column; in the second paragraph, line 58 remove ” 482.20(k)(4)” and add in its place “483.20(k)(4)”.
d. On page 68696, in the table under the “Implementation deadline” heading, second column, in the second bullet, after the word “QAPI,” remove the word “Plan” and add “Program” in its place.
e. On page 68697, in the table under the “Implementation deadline” heading, second column—
1. In the sixth bullet, remove the phrase “(e) Psychotropic drugs—Implemented in Phase 2” and add “(e)(3), (4), and (5) Psychotropic drugs—Implemented in Phase 2” in its place.
2. In the sixteenth bullet—
A. Remove the reference to “(g)(1)” and add “(g)” in its place.
B. Remove the phrase “with the exception of subparagraph (iv), the addition of the ICPO, which will be implemented in Phase 3” and add “with the exception of aragraphs (g)(1)(iv) (the addition of the IP) and (g)(2)(iii) (regarding the use of QAPI data), which will be implemented in Phase 3”.
C. Remove the acronym “ICPO” and add “IP” in its place.
Health facilities, Medicare.
Grant programs—health, Hospitals, Medicaid, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing homes, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Medicaid, Medicare, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
Secs. 1102, 1871 and 1881 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 1395rr), unless otherwise noted.
(b)
(1) Resident rights (§ 483.10(b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2)(iii), (c)(6), (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), (f)(4)(ii), (f)(4)(iii), (f)(9), (h), (g)(8), (g)(17), and (g)(18) introductory text.
(2) Admission, transfer, and discharge rights (§ 483.5 definition of transfer and discharge, § 483.15(c)(1), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(7)).
(3) Freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation (§ 483.12(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)).
(4) Patient activities (§ 483.24(c)).
(5) Social services (§ 483.40(d) and 483.70(p)).
(6) Discharge planning (§ 483.20(e)).
(7) Specialized rehabilitative services (§ 483.65).
(8) Dental services (§ 483.55).
Secs. 1102, 1128I and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7j, 1395hh and 1396r).
(2) Requirements. In addition to meeting the requirements of specified in the definition of “distinct part” of this section, a composite distinct part must meet all of the following requirements:
(c) * * *
(5) The facility must develop and maintain policies and procedures for the monthly drug regimen review that include, but are not limited to, time frames for the different steps in the process and steps the pharmacist must take when he or she identifies an irregularity that requires urgent action to protect the resident.
(i) Medical records. * * *
(b)
(c)
(2) When life support systems are used, the facility must provide emergency electrical power with an emergency generator (as defined in NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities) that is located on the premises.
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395(hh)).
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) Resident rights (§ 483.10(b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2)(iii), (c)(6), (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), (f)(4)(ii), (f)(4)(iii), (f)(9), (g)(8), (g)(17), (g)(18) introductory text, (h) of this chapter).
(2) Admission, transfer, and discharge rights (§ 483.5 definition of transfer & discharge, § 483.15(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(7), (c)(8), and (c)(9) of this chapter).
(3) Freedom from abuse, neglect and exploitation (§ 483.12(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this chapter).
(4) Patient activities (§ 483.24(c) of this chapter), except that the services may be directed either by a qualified professional meeting the requirements of § 483.24(c)(2), or by an individual on the facility staff who is designated as the activities director and who serves in consultation with a therapeutic recreation specialist, occupational therapist, or other professional with experience or education in recreational therapy.
(5) Social services (§ 483.40(d) and § 483.70(p) of this chapter).
(6) Comprehensive assessment, comprehensive care plan, and discharge planning (§ 483.20(b), and § 483.21(b) and (c)(2) of this chapter), except that the CAH is not required to use the resident assessment instrument (RAI) specified by the State that is required under § 483.20(b), or to comply with the requirements for frequency, scope, and number of assessments prescribed in § 413.343(b) of this chapter).
(7) Specialized rehabilitative services (§ 483.65 of this chapter).
(8) Dental services (§ 483.55 of this chapter).
(9) Nutrition (§ 483.25(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this chapter).
Secs. 1102, 1128l, 1864, 1865, 1871 and 1875 of the Social Security Act, unless otherwise noted (42 U.S.C 1302, 1320a-7j, 1395aa, 1395bb, 1395hh) and 1395ll.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; dismissal of petition for reconsideration.
In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed in this rulemaking proceeding by William J. Kirsch. This action was taken on delegated authority jointly by the Acting Chief, International Bureau, and the Chief, Media Bureau.
July 13, 2017.
Gabrielle Kim or Francis Gutierrez, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-1480 or via email to
This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration in GN Docket No. 15-236, DA 17-562, adopted and released on June 8, 2017. The full text of the Order on Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to
1. In the
2. The Order on Reconsideration dismisses the Petition because it does not meet the requirements of section 1.429 of the Commission's rules and plainly does not warrant consideration by the Commission. More specifically, the Petition fails to state with particularity the respects in which the Petitioner believes the action taken by the Commission in the
3. The Order on Reconsideration finds the Petition fails to state with particularity the respects in which Petitioner believes the Commission's action in the
4. The Order on Reconsideration also finds that the Petition raises no relevant new arguments and merely echoes Petitioner's earlier arguments, made in response to the
5. In sum, the Commission fully considered Petitioner's earlier arguments and explained in the
6. The Petition also fails to demonstrate any material error, omission, or reason warranting reconsideration of the
7. Finally, the Order on Reconsideration notes that Petitioner's
8. Accordingly,
9.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of sablefish by non-CDQ vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the 2017 sablefish initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI has been reached.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 10, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 non-CDQ sablefish trawl ITAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 541 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2017 non-CDQ sablefish trawl ITAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that sablefish caught with non-CDQ vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting retention of sablefish by non-CDQ vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 6, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by §§ 679.20 and 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management proposes to issue new regulations on the granting and recording of administrative leave, investigative leave, notice leave, and weather and safety leave. The Administrative Leave Act of 2016 created these new categories of statutorily authorized paid leave and established parameters for their use by Federal agencies. The regulations will provide a framework for agency compliance with the new statutory requirements.
Comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3206-AN49 using one of the following methods:
Kurt Springmann or Julie Ohr by email at
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing proposed regulations to implement the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, enacted under section 1138 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000, December 23, 2016). The Administrative Leave Act of 2016, hereafter referred to as “the Act,” added three new sections in title 5 of the U.S. Code that provide for specific categories of paid leave and requirements that shall apply to each: § 6329a Regarding administrative leave; § 6329b regarding investigative leave and notice leave; and § 6329c regarding weather and safety leave.
Prior to passage of the Act, agencies granted paid excused absences (often called “administrative leave”) to employees based on the broad management authority in 5 U.S.C. 301-302, which allows heads of agencies to prescribe regulations for the government of their organizations. This authority does not expressly address excused absence and thus does not set parameters on its use. However, some direction on use of the excused absence authority was provided in Comptroller General decisions and in OPM guidance.
In the sense of Congress provisions in section 1138(b) of the Act, Congress expressed the need for legislation to address concerns that usage of administrative leave had sometimes exceeded reasonable amounts and resulted in significant costs to the Government. Congress wanted agencies to (1) use administrative leave sparingly and reasonably, (2) consider alternatives to use of administrative leave when employees are under investigation, and (3) act expeditiously to conclude investigations and either return the employee to duty or take an appropriate personnel action. Congress also wanted agencies to keep accurate records regarding the use of administrative leave for various purposes.
In drafting the Act, Congress considered an October 2014 report entitled “Federal Paid Administrative Leave,” which was prepared by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). (See GAO Report 15-79.) At the request of Congress, GAO examined the paid administrative leave policies at selected Federal agencies, reviewed practices in recording and reporting of paid administrative leave, and described categories of purposes for which large amounts of paid administrative leave have been charged. GAO found that agency policies on administrative leave varied and that some employees were on administrative leave for long periods (primarily due to extended personnel investigations), which had significant cost implications. GAO also found problems in agencies' recording and reporting practices with respect to administrative leave. The GAO report was cited in Congressional committee reports on draft bills addressing the use of administrative leave for Federal employees. (See House Report 114-520, August 25, 2016, accompanying H.R. 4359 and Senate Report 114-292, July 6, 2016, accompanying S. 2450.) Those committee reports also include useful background information on the development of legislation that eventually culminated in the passage of the Administrative Leave Act of 2016.
In this proposed regulation, OPM proposes to add three new subparts to 5 CFR part 630 that correspond to the three new statutory sections in 5 U.S.C. chapter 63: Subpart N, Administrative Leave (implementing 5 U.S.C. 6329a); Subpart O, Investigative Leave and Notice Leave (implementing 5 U.S.C. 6329b); and Subpart P, Weather and Safety Leave (implementing 5 U.S.C. 6329c).
Administrative leave is permitted—at an agency's discretion but subject to statutory and regulatory requirements—when an agency determines that no other paid leave is available under other law. Under § 6329a(b)(1), an agency may place an employee on administrative leave for no more than 10 total workdays in any given calendar year.
Investigative leave and notice leave are permitted—at an agency's discretion but subject to statutory and regulatory requirements—when an agency determines that an employee must be removed from the workplace while under investigation or during a notice period (
Weather and safety leave is permitted—at an agency's discretion but subject to statutory and regulatory requirements, agency policies, and lawful collective bargaining provisions—when an agency determines that employees cannot safely travel to and from, or perform work at, their normal worksite, a telework site, or other approved location because of severe weather or other emergency situations. There are no time limitations with respect to this type of leave.
Both the law and the proposed regulations address recordkeeping and reporting requirements with which agencies must comply. Agencies must keep separate records on each type of leave: Administrative leave, investigative leave, notice leave, and weather and safety leave.
In the latter portion of this Supplementary Information, we present a section-by-section explanation for the regulations in each subpart (N, O, and P).
The Act directs OPM to prescribe (
When OPM issues final regulations, we intend to specify that the regulations for subparts N and O (dealing with administrative leave and investigative/notice leave, respectively) will take effect 270 days after publication by specifying a separate “implementation date.” Consistent with the statutory provisions, agencies will have 270 calendar days following the date of publication of the final regulations to revise and implement internal policies to meet the new requirements. That will give agencies time to develop internal policies and procedures, including necessary changes in recordkeeping and reporting systems. OPM intends to further specify that subpart P (dealing with weather and safety leave) will take effect 30 days after the date of publication of the final regulations. However, we expect to delay enforcing the requirement that agencies separately report weather and safety leave to OPM until the 270th day following publication of the final regulations.
In OPM's regulations dealing with general provisions for annual and sick leave (5 CFR subpart B), we propose to remove the second sentence in § 630.206(a), which reads: “If an employee is unavoidably or necessarily absent for less than one hour, or tardy, the agency, for adequate reason, may excuse him without charge to leave.” This regulation was not an authority for creating a type of paid time off, but merely recognized the existence of agency authority to provide brief periods of excused absence under Comptroller General decisions.
Now that OPM has authority to regulate the use of administrative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329a, it is more appropriate for this particular application of administrative leave to be covered under the new regulations. We would expect administrative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329a to be used rarely, if at all, for the purpose of excusing a tardy employee. We note that weather and safety leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329c may appropriately be used so that, due to weather or other emergency conditions, an agency may allow employees to have a delayed arrival to avoid unsafe travel conditions.
Section 630.1401 addresses the purpose of the proposed regulations on administrative leave—
Section 630.1402 provides definitions of terms for purposes of subpart N. Explanations regarding certain definitions are provided below.
We define
We provide that the term
We define
We define
We define
This section sets out the general principles and prohibited uses of the administrative leave authority under 5 U.S.C. 6329a and subpart N. In developing the general principles, OPM took into account past OPM policy and guidance as well as Comptroller General decisions regarding the use of general administrative leave. In paragraph (a)(1), we list three conditions. To justify any use of administrative leave, one of these conditions must be met. The first condition is that an agency may grant administrative leave when the absence directly relates to the mission of the agency. For example, an agency could grant administrative leave to an employee to attend a professional meeting or perform certain volunteer work when these relate to the agency's mission.
The second condition permits an agency to grant administrative leave when the absence is for an activity officially sponsored or sanctioned by the agency. For example, an agency may grant administrative leave to permit employees to participate in an American Red Cross blood donation drive being conducted in an agency facility.
The third condition permits an agency to grant administrative leave when the agency determines that the absence would be in the interest of the agency or the Government as a whole. For instance, an agency may grant administrative leave to allow an employee to participate in employee wellness or health promotion events (
Section 630.1403(a)(5) provides that a determination that an absence satisfies one of the three conditions in § 630.1403(a)(1) must be (1) permitted under policies established by the head of the agency; and (2) reviewed and approved by an official of the agency who is (or is acting) at a higher level than the official making the determination (unless the determination is made by the head or acting head of the agency). The first requirement ensures that agency heads are accountable for adopting policies to ensure appropriate use of administrative leave, consistent with OPM regulations. The second requirement—that administrative leave be approved only after second-level review—should help prevent inappropriate uses and ensure that administrative leave is used sparingly.
Section 630.1403(a)(2) states the principle that administrative leave is not an employee entitlement, but is granted sparingly at the discretion of the agency. Accordingly, employees are not entitled to a certain number of administrative leave hours or days during any specified period, whether biweekly, monthly, or annually.
Section 630.1403(a)(3) states the principle that the appropriate use of administrative leave is for brief periods of time. In most instances, this will be no longer than 1 day; however, exceptions may be approved. For example, an exception is made for times when an employee is subject to an investigation and his or her retention in duty status is inconsistent with the best interests of the Government. In this case, the agency—prior to placing an employee on investigative leave under subpart O of these regulations—must charge administrative leave until expiration of the 10-workday limit described in 5 U.S.C. 6329a(b)(1) and § 630.1404. (See also 5 U.S.C. 6329b(b)(3)(A).)
Section 630.1403(a)(4) states the principle that administrative leave may not be established as an ongoing or recurring entitlement. Accordingly, an agency may not provide a recurring entitlement to administrative leave, for example, on an employee's birthday or on a day following a Thursday holiday. However, an agency may grant administrative leave on an ad hoc basis for an activity or event that may be ongoing or recurring and is in the Government's interest (
In addition to the general principles, § 630.1403(b) describes specific prohibited uses of administrative leave. Section 630.1403(b)(1) provides that agencies are prohibited from using administrative leave to mark the memory of a deceased Federal official, which is consistent with the principle underlying the statutory bar in 5 U.S.C. 6105 prohibiting closure of agencies to mark the memory of a deceased Federal official. We note, however, that section 6105 does not constrain the President from exercising his or her authority in 5 U.S.C. 6103(b) to declare a holiday by Executive order in connection with the death of a President. If the President provides excused absence for Federal employees to commemorate the service of a deceased former President, such excused absence is not a granting of administrative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329a or subpart N, since it is granted under a Presidential directive and is also authorized as a holiday under 5 U.S.C. 6103(b). (The definition of “administrative leave” under § 630.1402 excludes paid leave authorized under Presidential directives.)
Section 630.1403(b)(2) prohibits agencies from granting administrative leave to permit an employee to participate in an event for his or her personal benefit or the benefit of an outside organization, unless the participation would satisfy one of the conditions in § 630.1403(a)(1). To permit employees to participate in these events, agencies alternatively may approve employees' requests to adjust their work schedules or to use annual leave, leave without pay, compensatory time off, credit hours, or other earned time off.
Section 630.1403(b)(3) prohibits agencies from granting administrative leave as a reward to recognize the performance or contributions of employees. The proper personnel authorities for recognizing the performance or contributions of employees are cash awards and time-off awards. This prohibition does not affect employee attendance at agency awards ceremonies, since such attendance is considered to be on-duty time in direct support of the agency mission.
Section 630.1403(b)(4) prevents agencies from granting administrative leave to allow employees to engage in volunteer work or other civic activity that is not officially sponsored or sanctioned by the head of the agency, based on the agency's mission or Governmentwide interests. This prohibition bars agencies from providing administrative leave for volunteer and other activities that do not benefit the agency or serve a Governmentwide interest. A Governmentwide interest is generally documented through a statement of
Section 630.1404 addresses the 10-workday calendar year limitation on use of administrative leave imposed by 5 U.S.C. 6329a(b)(1). Paragraph (a) states the limitation and notes that the 10-day limitation carries over when an employee transfers to another covered agency or separates and is reemployed by a covered agency within the same calendar year. For example, if an employee has been granted 6 workdays of administrative leave at one agency and then transfers to another agency, the employee may be granted only 4 more workdays of administrative leave by the gaining agency during the remainder of the calendar year.
Section 630.1404(b) provides for the conversion of the 10-workday calendar year limitation to an aggregate limit on hours in order to facilitate application of the limit to employees on different work schedules. For full-time employees who are not on an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210, the 10-workday limitation is converted to an 80-hour limitation. For full-time employees with an uncommon tour of duty, the converted calendar year limitation equals the number of hours in the biweekly uncommon tour of duty, averaged as necessary. For example, for an employee with an uncommon tour of 144 hours biweekly, the 10-workday limitation equates to 144 hours. (Note that the regular 80-hour calendar limit multiplied by 144/80 equals 144 hours.) For a part-time employee, the calendar year limitation is prorated based on the number of hours in the employee's tour of duty consistent with the proration of annual and sick leave required by 5 U.S.C. 6302(c). For example, the 10-workday limitation for a half-time employee equates to 40 hours, since 80 hours times 40/80 equals 40 hours.
Section 630.1404(c) provides that the calendar year limitation applies only to administrative leave. The limitation does not apply to investigative leave and notice leave provided under subpart O, weather and safety leave provided under subpart P, or leave provided under other statute or a Presidential directive.
Section 630.1404(d) provides that, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 6329b(b)(3)(A), if an employee under investigation must be placed on leave and that employee has not yet reached the 10-workday calendar year limitation, administrative leave under subpart N must first be used instead of investigative leave. This is because investigative leave under subpart O may not be used until the employee has exhausted the 10-workday limitation.
Section 630.1404(e) prohibits agencies from granting additional administrative leave until the next calendar year when an employee reaches the calendar year limit. If an employee has reached his or her calendar year limit and a situation arises where the employee might have been granted administrative leave but for the limit, the employee must continue to work or use other appropriate leave (
Section 630.1405(a) provides that the minimum charge increment (fraction of an hour) for administrative leave is the same as the agency uses for annual and sick leave.
Section 630.1405(b) states that administrative leave may be granted only for hours within an employee's tour of duty established for the purposes of charging annual and sick leave, which for full-time employees is either the 40-hour basic workweek, the basic work requirement for employees on a flexible or compressed work schedule, or an uncommon tour of duty pursuant to § 630.210.
Section 630.1405(c) states that agencies may authorize or require administrative leave for a single employee or a category of employees. It also notes that employees do not have an entitlement to administrative leave and, in particular, are not entitled to receive the full calendar year limit each year. Employees receive only the amount of administrative leave granted by the agency, which may be less (but can never be more) than the calendar year limit. This paragraph also notes that employees do not have a right to refuse administrative leave when the agency requires its use.
This section provides the recordkeeping and reporting requirements regarding administrative leave. Paragraph (a) requires agencies to accurately record use of administrative leave for each employee under two categories—administrative leave used for the purposes of an investigation and administrative leave used for all other purposes. Paragraph (b) requires that agency data systems and data reports submitted to OPM record administrative leave authorized under 5 U.S.C. 6329a and subpart N of these regulations separately from other types of leave and in the two categories noted above. This section also states that agencies must provide information on the granting of administrative leave to the Government Accountability Office as that office requires.
Under § 630.1407, agencies must certify, in a manner prescribed by OPM, the number of hours used by an employee in the two administrative leave categories during the current calendar year when the employee transfers to another agency or separates. The employee does not receive a new calendar year limitation upon (1) transfer to another agency or (2) reemployment by a covered agency after a separation within the same calendar year. Thus, the gaining agency must apply the hours reported by the losing agency to the employee's current calendar year limitation.
Section 630.1501(a) states the purpose of subpart O—
Section 630.1501(b) states this subpart applies to an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 who is employed in an agency, excluding an Inspector General or an intermittent employee who, by definition, does not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek. This subpart does not apply to employees who are exempt from 5 U.S.C. chapter 63, such as employees of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. (Specific laws in title 49 provide that most title 5 provisions, including chapter 63, do not apply to
Section 630.1501(c) explains this subpart applies to certain employees covered by a special personnel authority in title 38, United States Code, even though that authority would normally allow those employees to be exempted from title 5 leave provisions.
Section 630.1502 provides definitions of various terms. The definitions align with definitions found in the law. Explanations regarding certain definitions are provided below.
We are defining the term
We are defining the term
In the definition of the term
We are providing a definition of
We are providing a definition of
Separate from the administrative leave authorized by 5 U.S.C. 6329a and subpart N, new § 630.1503 establishes two new forms of paid leave on which agencies may place employees who are under investigation or who have received a notice of a proposed adverse action. These two new categories are to be known as “investigative leave” under § 630.1503(a)(1) and “notice leave” under § 630.1503(a)(2). Investigative leave and notice leave are not employee entitlements. Instead they are intended to provide the employing agency with the means of removing an employee from the workplace and keeping the employee away from the workplace while the agency investigates the employee or during the notice period of a proposed adverse action against that employee (or both). The default situation should be that an employee who is being investigated or against whom an adverse action has been proposed will remain in a duty status in his or her regular position during the investigation or notice period. Investigative leave or notice leave should be applied only when the agency makes the required determination that the employee must be removed from the workplace during a period of investigation or during a notice period in order to protect agency facilities or systems, the Federal workforce, or the public from harm. In these circumstances, after the required consideration of other options, an agency may place an employee on investigative leave or notice leave. An agency may also consider requiring an employee who is otherwise telework-eligible and who is currently (or recently) participating in the agency telework program to telework from home or another approved location as an alternative to investigative leave. (Any such assessment, however, will need to take into account whether the employee should retain eligibility for logical access to agency systems under the standards established by Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 and guidance issued pursuant to that directive).
Section 630.1503(a)(1) states one of the conditions that must be met before an employee may be placed on investigative leave—namely, that the employee is “the subject of an investigation.”
Section 630.1503(a)(2)(i) authorizes notice leave when an employee is in a notice period. An employee who has not received an advance notice of proposed adverse action under 5 CFR chapter 752 may not be provided notice leave. Section 630.1503(a)(2)(ii) authorizes notice leave, following a placement of an employee on investigative leave, which may be provided after the last day of the period of investigative leave if the agency proposes an adverse action against the employee under 5 CFR chapter 752 or similar authority. This means investigative leave and notice leave may be used consecutively in some instances. Agencies should be mindful, however, of any internal procedures related to the preparation and approval of a proposed adverse action before it is issued. If the agency determines that the employee continues to meet the criteria of § 630.1503(b)(1) and one or more of the options in § 630.1503(b)(2) is not appropriate, the agency may not transition the employee from investigative leave to notice leave until such time as it has issued the notice of proposed adverse action.
Section 630.1503(b) sets forth the limited circumstances under which an agency may place an employee on investigative leave or notice leave, consistent with the statutory requirements in 5 U.S.C. 6329b(b)(2). First, as provided in paragraph (b)(1), the agency has to make a determination that the continued presence of the employee in the workplace while under investigation or in a notice period may pose a threat to the employee or others, result in the destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation, result in loss or damage to Government property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests. (See 5 U.S.C. 6329b(b)(2)(A).) This determination is accomplished through an assessment of baseline factors.
Second, as provided in paragraph (b)(2), the agency must consider required options instead of the use of investigative leave or notice leave.
The baseline factors referenced in § 630.1503(b)(1) are identified in § 630.1503(e), but are described at this point in the section-by-section review of the regulations given their essentiality in making a determination under paragraph (b)(1) regarding whether an employee's continued presence in the
The baseline factors are to be used as a starting point when determining whether an employee should be placed on investigative leave or notice leave. Each baseline factor should be considered. Agencies should exercise independent, reasonable judgment in evaluating each particular situation. Agencies should consult with their human resources office or their general counsel, or both, to the extent appropriate, before placing an employee on investigative leave or notice leave.
•
An agency may determine investigative leave and/or notice leave is necessary because of the nature and severity of the employee's exhibited or alleged behavior. The behavior could be the basis for the investigation and/or be the reason for the proposed adverse action. In some cases, however, the behavior may be exhibited during or following an investigation or proposed adverse action. The nature and severity of the behavior may be in the form of danger to the employee or others, or to Government networks, systems, or property.
Examples of possible threats include direct or veiled threats of harm, belligerence, harassing, bullying, or other inappropriate and aggressive behavior. The employee may have made statements and/or engaged in behaviors that have intimidated other employees or management may have determined that statements or behaviors, because of their disturbing nature, have disrupted the workplace. The behavior may be directed at another individual or may involve physical damage to or destruction of Government property or the misuse of agency systems or the data they contain; it could also involve a plan to commit, threat to commit, or attempt to commit such conduct. Examples include but are not limited to assaulting a co-worker, supervisor, or agency client; menacing conduct, such as destruction of furniture or other action that puts another individual in reasonable fear of immediate bodily injury. The nature and severity of the employee's exhibited or alleged behavior may involve agency computer systems and other technologies, as well as data handling and access. Examples could include attempting to gain or actually obtaining unauthorized access to systems disbursing money or to classified information. When appropriate, agencies should work closely with their information systems management and/or cyber security advisors to identify patterns of behavior that may indicate the potential for malicious activity on information systems. The agency should identify any relationship between the perceived threat and the technology that may be vulnerable. These considerations relate to the agency's responsibility to determine internal security practices, which includes developing policies and practices designed to safeguard personnel, property or operations, as well as developing a plan to prevent damage to or loss of agency property.
•
In determining whether to place an employee on investigative leave and/or notice leave, it is important to consider the relationship between the employee's behavior and his or her ability to perform work successfully and without unreasonable risk to the agency during the investigation or notice period and accomplish his or her duties satisfactorily. Among the considerations would be the nature of the employee's duties, the employee's job level, and/or whether the employee has a supervisory or fiduciary role. An employee's contact with the public and the prominence of his or her position are additional considerations that an agency may evaluate in relationship with the alleged misconduct.
•
This factor represents a broad category that agencies may apply given their individual missions. This could include a range of workplace behaviors and actions that could impede the normal course of work, or have a harmful effect on the safety and order of the workplace. Possible aspects the agency may wish to review in this regard include the extent to which the employee's presence in the workplace or access to agency systems may impair or disrupt agency operations, place systems at risk, harm public confidence in the agency, or otherwise have a detrimental impact on legitimate Government interests. It is advisable for agencies to consult with their legal counsel to determine what situations and circumstances would be detrimental to legitimate Government interests in light of other authorities such as HSPD 12. Differences in agency mission or agency practice, or other internal regulations, may affect this determination.
When considering these baseline factors, agencies should evaluate the duration of the risk; the nature and severity of the potential harm; how likely it is that the potential harm will occur; and how imminent the potential harm is. The agency may not arbitrarily place individuals on investigative leave or notice leave based upon fear of a future risk without engaging in an individualized assessment that establishes that there is a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by other means.
Section 630.1503(b)(2) requires that the agency consider other options where appropriate to minimize the amount of investigative leave or notice leave provided to an employee, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 6329b(b)(2)(B). Thus, if the agency makes a determination that the continued presence of the employee in the workplace during an investigation of the employee or while the employee is in a notice period meets the criteria of § 630.1503(b)(1), the agency must also consider certain options before placing the employee on investigative leave or notice leave. The options that must be considered are: (1) Assigning the employee to duties in which the employee is no longer a threat, (2) allowing the employee to voluntarily take another type of leave, (3) carrying the employee in absent without leave status if the employee is absent from duty without approval, and (4) curtailing the notice period, consistent with chapter 75 of title 5 of the U.S.
An agency needs to assess whether one or more of the options required to be considered is or are appropriate, and, if so, which is the most appropriate to address concerns about the continued presence of the employee in the workplace and to resolve the safety or security issue(s) presented by the employee. The manager should work closely with the agency's human resources advisors during the process of reviewing the options for consideration. The agency must determine that none of the options is appropriate before placing an employee on investigative leave or notice leave. In addition, agencies may require an employee who is telework-eligible—and has, in fact, been teleworking from home or another approved location—to telework as an alternative to placing the employee on investigative leave if telework will adequately reduce or eliminate the potential for harm.
Section 630.1503(b)(2)(i) sets forth the option of keeping the employee in a duty status by assigning the employee to duties in which the employee does not pose a threat. The duties should be at the same grade level as the employee's current position. The change in duties may also involve a change in the location where the employee works, subject to limitations related to the local commuting area. In considering this alternative in lieu of investigative leave, an agency may consider requiring an employee who participates in a telework program to perform duties from a telework site, as provided in § 630.1503(c). Assigning the employee to other duties (such as a detail assignment) or limiting the employee's access to intranet systems may enable the agency to maintain the safety and security of the workplace while continuing to benefit from the employee's skillset and abilities to further the agency's mission.
Section 630.1503(b)(2)(ii) sets forth the option of allowing the employee to voluntarily take leave (paid or unpaid) or other forms of paid time off, as appropriate under the rules governing each category of leave or paid time off. An employee who is under investigation or in a notice period may elect to take annual leave, sick leave (as appropriate), restored annual leave, or any leave earned under subchapter I of chapter 63, of the United States Code. The employee may also elect to use other paid time off in order to remain in a pay status, including paid time off that is about to expire, such as compensatory time off earned through overtime work, compensatory time off for travel, and credit hours under a flexible work schedule, as appropriate. An employee may elect to take leave or other paid time off for which the employee is eligible on an intermittent basis, as appropriate, during a period of investigative leave or notice leave.
Agencies may not require employees to take accrued leave or other time off as a substitute for investigative leave or notice leave, and may deny employee requests to use advanced leave.
Section 630.1503(b)(2)(iii) sets forth the option of carrying the employee in an absent without leave (AWOL) status, if the employee is absent from duty without approval. If the employee returns to a duty status, the AWOL would end. The agency could then place the employee on investigative leave or notice leave, as appropriate, only after the agency has analyzed the remaining considerations discussed in this section.
Section 630.1503(b)(2)(iv) sets forth the option of curtailing an employee's notice period if there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed. Under 5 CFR 752.404(d), this same option of curtailing the notice period is provided as an exception to the requirement for a 30 days' advance written notice period. Thus, this exception would shorten the length of the notice period, but the notice period would still not end until the adverse action is effectuated or until the employee is notified that no adverse action will be taken.
Section 630.1503(c) regulates that an agency may require an employee who is already a participant in the agency telework program, to perform duties similar to the duties that the employee performs at the normal worksite through telework as an alternative to placing an employee on investigative leave. This option to require telework is consistent with 5 U.S.C. 6502(c). (Section 6502(c) expressly links to the investigative leave law in 5 U.S.C. 6329b.
Section 6329b also includes references to section 6502(c) in subsections (d)(1)(E) and (f)(1)(F). Thus, OPM is incorporating provisions that implement the section 6502(c) requirements as part of its regulations of section 6329b.) An agency may require an employee to perform telework if the requirement for the employee to telework would not pose a threat to the employee or others, result in the destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation, result in loss of or damage to Government property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests. Furthermore, the agency must determine that (1) the employee is eligible to telework under the eligibility conditions found in 5 U.S.C. 6502(a) and (b) and (2) and is actually participating in the agency telework program and it would be appropriate for the employee to perform his or her duties through telework.
Under subsection (c) of 5 U.S.C. 6502, an agency may require telework in lieu of investigative leave if the employee is “eligible to telework under subsections (a) and (b)” of that section.
Section 6502(a) is titled “Telework Eligibility” and requires agencies to establish policies related to telework eligibility, subject to certain limitations in section 6502(a)(2). Section 6502(b) is titled “Participation,” but includes eligibility conditions in paragraph (b)(4). Paragraph (b)(4) states that, except in emergency conditions, telework shall not apply to any employee whose official duties require on a daily basis (every workday) (1) direct handling of secure materials that are inappropriate for telework or (2) on-site activity that cannot be handled at another location. OPM considers the requirement in section 6502(b)(2) to have a written telework agreement to be a procedural requirement related to participation, not an eligibility requirement.
However, based on our understanding of the intent of Congress, we are regulating that the authority to require telework under section 6502(c) applies only to an employee who has been a participant in the telework program during any portion of the 30-day period immediately preceding the commencement of investigative leave (or the commencement of required telework in lieu of the commencement of such leave). Any existing telework agreement will be superseded as necessary in order to comply with an agency's action to require telework under section 6502(c) and § 630.1503(c).
An agency requiring an employee to perform duties through telework is obligated to provide the employee appropriate work assignments and equipment. An agency may determine it is not appropriate for the employee to telework because it would require the employee to access agency files or to contact agency personnel, directly handle secure materials, or perform official duties that cannot be performed at an alternative worksite.
An employee who is required to telework should be issued a notification indicating that he or she is being directed to telework, and the
A telework-eligible employee required by an agency to telework under these conditions may be granted leave or other paid time off, as appropriate. An employee who refuses to telework when required by the agency under these conditions and is absent from telework duty without approval may be placed in AWOL status, consistent with agency policies.
Section 630.1503(d)(1) authorizes an agency to return an employee to duty at any time if the agency reassesses its determination to place the employee on investigative leave or notice leave. It also provides that an employee on investigative leave or notice leave must be prepared to report to work at any time during the employee's regularly scheduled tour of duty or must obtain approval of leave to eliminate the possible obligation to report to work if the employee believes that he or she would be unable to report promptly if called. While investigative leave is approved in increments of up to 30 workdays (see § 550.1504(b), (f), and (g)), an employee may be required to return to duty before an employee has reached the applicable 30-workday limit.
Section 630.1503(d)(2) applies to an employee on investigative leave. An agency may reassess its determination that the employee must be removed from the workplace based on the criteria in § 630.1503(b)(1) and its determination that the options in § 630.1503(b)(2) of this section are not appropriate. An agency may also reassess its previous determination to require or not require telework under paragraph (c) of this section.
Section 630.1503(d)(3) applies to an employee on notice leave. An agency may reassess its determination that the employee must be removed from the workplace based on the criteria in § 630.1503(b)(1) and its determination that the options in § 630.1503(b)(2) of this section are not appropriate.
Section 630.1503(d)(4) provides that, while an employee is on investigative leave or notice leave, the employee has an obligation to report promptly to an approved duty location if directed by his or her supervisor. Any failure to so report may be recorded as absent without leave, which can lead to disciplinary action. An employee who anticipates that he or she may be unavailable to report to duty promptly must request scheduled leave or paid time off in advance, in lieu of investigative leave. Given these regulatory requirements, an agency may consider adding language regarding these requirements in the notification regarding the employee's placement on investigative leave.
Section 630.1503(e) describes the baseline factors to be used in making a determination under § 630.1503(b)(1). (See the detailed description of those factors under the discussion of § 630.1503(b)(1) above.)
Section 630.1503(f) provides that agencies must use the same minimum charge increments for investigative and notice leave as it does for annual and sick leave under § 630.206.
Section 630.1504 explains that an employee under investigation will remain in a duty status, except when the agency determines that the employee's continued presence in the workplace meets the criteria described in § 630.1503(b)(1) and that none of the options under § 603.1503(b)(2) are appropriate.
Section 630.1504(a) explains that investigative leave may not commence until the employee's use of administrative leave under subpart N has reached the 10-workday calendar year limitation described in 5 U.S.C. 6329a(b)(1) and § 630.1404, as converted to hours under § 630.1404(b), and the agency determines that further investigation of the employee is necessary. The agency may conduct its investigation during the period of administrative leave provided under subpart N.
The limitation of 10 workdays of administrative leave under subpart N is a calendar year aggregate limit. If the 10-workday limit is reached in the calendar year in which the employee is placed on investigative leave, the period of investigative leave may continue into the next calendar year without the employee having to exhaust the 10 workdays of administrative leave permitted for use in the next calendar year. In other words, once triggered and commenced, investigative leave would continue as long as permitted without needing to again meet the requirement to exhaust 10-workday limit on administrative leave in a later calendar year. Agencies are expected to expeditiously work to resolve investigations so that the employee can return to duty or the agency can initiate an appropriate personnel action. If an agency determines that continued investigation of the employee is necessary after the 10-workday limitation of administrative leave has been reached, it must follow the procedures outlined in § 630.1503(b)—
Section 630.1504(b) provides that an agency may place the employee in an initial period of investigative leave under § 630.1503(a)(1) for a period of not more than 30 workdays. An employee may be placed on investigative leave intermittently. In other words, a period of investigative leave may be interrupted by (1) on-duty service performed under paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (c) of § 630.1503, (2) leave or paid time off in lieu of such service under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of § 630.1503, or (3) AWOL under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of § 630.1503.
Section 630.1504(c) requires an agency to provide an employee a written explanation of his or her placement on investigative leave. The written explanation must describe the limitations on the leave placement, including the limitation on the duration of the investigative leave, and include notice that, at the conclusion of the period of investigative leave, the agency must take an action under § 630.1504(d). Furthermore, the agency must include notice that placement on investigative leave for 70 workdays or more is considered a “personnel action” in applying the prohibited personnel practices provisions at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9).
Section 630.1504(d) provides that, not later than the day after the last day of an initial or extended period of investigative leave, an agency must take action to return the employee to regular duty status, take one or more of the actions under § 630.1503(b)(2), propose an adverse action against the employee as provided under law, or extend the period of investigative leave under § 630.1504(f) and (g). The requirement for agencies to take action at the conclusion of the period of investigative leave holds agencies accountable for the amount of paid leave provided to an employee under investigation for alleged misconduct and prevents situations where employees remain on paid leave for long periods of time without active investigation.
Section 630.1504(e) states that an investigation of an employee may continue after the expiration of the initial 30-workday period of investigative leave. Many factors and variables can require longer than 30 workdays for an agency to conduct an investigation, including but not limited to the nature and complexity of the
Section 630.1504(f)(1) allows an agency to extend the period of investigative leave for the employee—using increments of 30 workdays for each extension—when approved by the appropriate agency official upon determination that further time is required to conduct a full and fair investigation. It is conceivable that some investigations will be more involved and complex than others and require more than a 30-workday period of investigation; therefore, agencies must have the ability to extend an employee's period of investigative leave.
Section 630.1504(f)(2) provides that the total period of the extension of investigative leave under § 630.1504(f) may not exceed 90 workdays, which translates into 3 incremental extensions of 30 workdays. This 90-day limit applies to extensions of investigative leave associated with a single initial period of investigative leave. In practice, this means that an employee must first exhaust his or her 10 workdays of administrative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329a, before the agency may provide an initial period of investigative leave for 30 workdays under § 630.1503(a)(1). If there is a continued need to keep the employee on investigative leave, an authorized official may approve extension of investigative leave in increments of 30 workdays, not to exceed a total 90 workdays for the extensions under § 630.1504(f).
Section 630.1504(f)(3)(i) permits an incremental 30-workday extension under paragraph (f)(1) only if the agency makes a written determination reaffirming that the employee must be removed from the workplace based on the criteria in § 630.1503(b)(1) and that the options in § 630.1503(b)(2) are not appropriate. In other words, the same criteria used for an initial placement on investigative leave must be used in approving any extension.
Section 630.1504(f)(3)(ii) provides that an incremental extension of investigative leave under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is permitted only if approved by the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) of an agency (
Section 630.1504(f)(3)(iii) provides that, in the case of an employee of an Office of Inspector General, an incremental extension under § 630.1504(f)(1) is permitted only if approved by the Inspector General or designee (rather than the CHCO or designee) after consulting with the investigator responsible for conducting the investigation of the employee. However, as an alternative, the Inspector General may request that the head of the agency designate an official of the agency within which the Office of Inspector General is located to approve an extension of investigative leave for employees in that office.
Section 630.1504(f)(4) requires that in delegating authority to a designated official to approve an incremental extension as described in § 630.1504(f)(3) of this section, an agency must pay heed to the designation guidance issued by the CHCO Council under 5 U.S.C. 6329b(c)(3), except that, in the case of approvals for an employee of an Office of Inspector General (OIG), an agency must pay heed to the designation guidance issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency under 5 U.S.C. 6329b(c)(4)(B). Adherence to this designation guidance ensures that the designee authorized to approve an extension of investigative leave is at a sufficiently high level within the OIG or the agency, as applicable, to make an impartial and independent determination regarding the extension. Agencies should be aware, however, that this involvement could potentially disqualify the individual from serving as the deciding official in any subsequent adverse action.
Section 630.1504(g) provides that after reaching the maximum number of extensions of investigative leave under § 630.1504(f), an official authorized to approve an extension under § 630.1504(f)(3) may approve further incremental extensions of investigative leave for periods of 30 workdays for each extension. Those approvals must be based on the same criteria used to approve the initial period of investigative leave and the extensions under § 630.1504(f). While agencies must be allowed to take the time needed to conduct a full and fair investigation of the employee, agencies are not permitted to keep an employee on investigative leave indefinitely. Therefore, not later than 5 business days after granting each further extension of investigative leave, the agency must submit a report documenting the further extension of investigative leave to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, along with any other committees of jurisdiction.
The agency report must contain: (1) The title, position, office or agency subcomponent, job series, pay grade, and salary of the employee; (2) a description of the duties of the employee; (3) the reason the employee was placed on investigative leave; (4) an explanation as to why the employee meets the criteria described in § 630.1503(b)(1) and why the agency is not able to temporarily reassign the employee to different duties within the agency under § 630.1503(b)(2); (5) in the case of an employee required to telework under 5 U.S.C. 6502(c) during the investigation, the reasons that the agency required the employee to telework and the duration of the teleworking requirement; (6) the status of the investigation of the employee; (7) the certification by an investigative entity that additional time is needed to complete the investigation of the employee and an estimate of the amount of time that is necessary to complete the investigation of the employee; and (8) in the case of a completed investigation of the employee, the results of the investigation and the reason the employee remains on investigative leave. While not required to be included in the report, agencies should be prepared to explain their decision not to require a telework-eligible employee to telework during the period of investigation.
Section 630.1504(h) provides an agency may not further extend a period of investigative leave of an employee on or after the date that is 30 calendar days after the completion of the investigation of the employee by an investigative entity. After investigative leave is ended, the agency must take action under § 630.1504(d).
Section 630.1504(i) explains that, pursuant to new 5 U.S.C. 6329b(g), and for purposes of 5 U.S.C. chapter 12, subchapter II, and section 1221, and recourse to the Office of Special Counsel, placement on investigative leave under this subpart for a period of 70 workdays or more shall be considered a personnel action in applying the prohibited personnel practices provisions at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) or (9). Previously, an employee had no means to contest an agency decision to place him or her on administrative leave for a reason proscribed at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) or (9), given that the employee continued to receive pay. This provision provides independent review for employees who have been on investigative leave for at least 70 workdays and who allege conduct prohibited under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) or (9). Consistent with current case law, the placement on investigative leave or notice leave is not an adverse action.
Section 630.1504(j) explains the conversion of workdays to hours applicable in this subpart. The limitations based on workdays (
Section 630.1504(j)(1) applies to a full-time employee (including an employee on a regular 40-hour basic workweek or a flexible or compressed work schedule under 5 U.S.C. chapter 61, subchapter II, but excluding an employee on an uncommon tour of duty). Based on an 8-hour workday, the 30-workday increment is converted to 240 hours. The 30-workday increment is the equivalent of 6 calendar weeks of investigative leave. The 70-workday limit is converted to 560 hours.
Section 630.1504(j)(2) applies to a full-time employee with an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210. The 30-workday increment is converted to three times the number of hours in the biweekly uncommon tour of duty (or the average biweekly hours for uncommon tours for which the biweekly hours vary over an established cycle). The 30-workday increment is the equivalent of 6 calendar weeks of investigative leave. The 70-workday limit is converted to a number of hours derived by multiplying the hours equivalent of 30 workdays (for a given uncommon tour) times the ratio of 70 divided by 30.
Section 630.1504(j)(3) applies to a part-time employee. The calendar year limit is prorated based on the number of hours in the officially scheduled part-time tour of duty established for purposes of charging leave when absent (
Section 630.1505(a) provides that notice leave may commence only after an employee has received written notice of a proposed adverse action. There is no requirement that the employee exhaust his or her 10 workdays of administrative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329a(b) and § 630.1405 before the employee may be placed on notice leave.
Section 630.1505(b) provides that the placement of an employee on notice leave shall be for a period not longer than the duration of the notice period.
Section 630.1505(c) provides that, if an agency places an employee on notice leave, the agency must provide the employee a written explanation regarding the placement of the employee on notice leave. The written explanation must provide information on the employee's notice period and include a statement that the notice leave will be provided only during the notice period.
Section 630.1506(a) requires an agency to maintain an accurate record of the placement of an employee on investigative leave or notice leave by the agency. The specific information that must be kept in agency records is identified, consistent with the requirements in 5 U.S.C. 6329b(f). OPM may add additional recordkeeping requirements as it deems appropriate.
Section 630.1506(b)(1) requires an agency to make a record kept under § 630.1506(a) available, upon request, to any committee of jurisdiction, to OPM, to the Government Accountability Office, and as otherwise required by law. However, § 630.1506(b)(2) provides that any action to make a record available is subject to other applicable laws, Executive orders, and regulations governing the dissemination of sensitive information related to national security, foreign relations, or law enforcement matters.
Section 630.1506(c)(1) requires agencies to properly record the granting of investigative leave and notice leave. In agency data systems and in data reports submitted to OPM, an agency must record investigative leave and notice leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329b and this subpart as categories of leave separate from other types of leave. The leave must be recorded as either investigative leave or notice leave, as applicable.
GAO found in its 2014 report that agency policies on paid administrative leave differ across agencies, including the way agencies record paid administrative leave. These proposed regulations provide clear guidance on the use of administrative leave, which, in turn, will promote more consistent recording and documentation of various categories of administrative leave. In order to accurately measure the use of paid administrative leave across Federal agencies, agencies must have a consistent method of documenting the use of administrative leave. Specifically, agencies must properly record administrative leave and distinguish it from leave that is otherwise authorized by other statutory provisions, such as military leave, bone marrow/organ donor leave, and court leave. Without proper recording of leave taken, it is difficult to determine how much administrative leave is actually being used and to hold agencies accountable for its use.
Therefore, for recording purposes, OPM is creating two new categories to record leave granted under 5 U.S.C. 6329b: (1) Investigative leave and (2) notice leave. Investigative leave and notice leave must be recorded on an hourly basis (
Section 630.1506(c)(2) requires agencies to provide information to the Government Accountability Office as that office requires in order to submit reports to specified Congressional committees required under section 1138(d)(2) of Public Law 114-328. These reports must be submitted not later than 5 years after December 23, 2016, and every 5 years thereafter.
Section 630.1601(a) addresses the purpose of the proposed regulations on
Section 630.1602 provides definitions of various terms used in subpart P. The definitions align with the definitions found in the law.
The statute at 5 U.S.C. 6329c(b)(1) uses the term “act of God.” We define
The statute at 5 U.S.C. 6329c(a)(1) defines
We define
We define
We define
We define
Section 630.1603 addresses the conditions under which an agency may authorize weather and safety leave—
Section 630.1604(a) addresses OPM's responsibility to prescribe regulations and guidance related to the appropriate use of weather and safety leave, including guidance on dismissal/closure policies and procedures related to such leave. Such guidance will deal not only with when it is appropriate to provide weather and safety leave, but also when other workplace flexibility options (including other leave, telework, and flexible work schedules) should be utilized instead of weather and safety leave. In the past, OPM has issued dismissal/closure policies and procedures focused on the Washington, DC, area where OPM, through longstanding practice, has exercised responsibility for issuing operating status announcements in emergency situations. (This responsibility involves taking the lead in coordinating with municipal and regional officials—
Also, § 630.1604(a) states that when OPM issues any operating status announcement for the Washington, DC, area, the specific policies and procedures communicated with that announcement must be consistent with OPM regulations and Governmentwide guidance on closures and dismissals.
Section 630.1604(b) describes agency responsibilities to (1) establish policies and procedures related to weather and safety leave that are consistent with OPM regulations and guidance and (2) use terminology required by OPM-issued Governmentwide guidance for any operating status announcements issued by an agency (for a specific location).
Section 630.1605 provides exclusions to the granting of weather and safety leave when an employee is eligible for and participating in an agency telework program or is designated as an “emergency employee.”
•
Section 630.1605(a)(1) states that agencies may not grant weather and safety leave to employees who are participating in a telework program and who are not prevented from safely working at an approved telework site. This implements the statutory provision at 5 U.S.C. 6329c(b) that prescribes that weather and safety leave may be provided when employees are prevented from safely traveling to or safely performing work “at an [
Section 630.1605(a)(2) permits exceptions to the bar on granting weather/safety leave for teleworkers when, in the agency's judgment, the employee was not able to prepare for teleworking and is otherwise not able to perform productive work at the telework site (
Section 630.1605(a)(3) requires the agency to evaluate whether the weather or safety conditions could be reasonably anticipated and whether the employee took reasonable steps (within the employee's control) to prepare for telework (such as by bringing any needed equipment and work home). If the employee failed to make the necessary preparations, the agency may not grant weather and safety leave. In this case, the employee's only options would be to use other appropriate paid leave or paid time off, or leave without pay.
•
Section 630.1605(b) provides that agencies may designate emergency employees as necessary for critical agency operations and for whom the general granting of weather and safety leave generally does not apply. Agencies may designate different emergency employees for the various emergencies that may occur, but should designate these employees well in advance of the possible emergencies, to the extent practicable. Emergency employees are expected to report to the agency-designated worksite unless the agency determines that it is unsafe to do so, in which case the agency may allow the employee to telework or work at another location. An agency may also determine that the circumstances justify granting weather and safety leave to emergency employees.
Section 630.1606(a) provides that the minimum charge increment for weather and safety leave is the same as the agency uses for annual and sick leave.
Section 630.1606(b) states that weather and safety leave may be granted only for hours within an employee's tour of duty established for the purposes of charging annual and sick leave, which for full-time employees is either the 40-hour basic workweek, the basic work requirement for employees on a flexible or compressed work schedule, or an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210.
Section 630.1606(c) states that agencies may not grant weather and safety leave for hours during which employees are on other preapproved leave (paid or unpaid) or paid time off. It also provides that an agency should not approve an employee's request to cancel preapproved leave or paid time off if the agency determines that the request is primarily for the purpose of obtaining weather and safety leave.
This section provides the recordkeeping and reporting requirements regarding weather and safety leave. Agencies are required to keep accurate records on the number of weather and safety leave hours granted to employees and to report this data to OPM in the manner directed.
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM proposes to amend part 630 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Subparts A through E issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a) (read with 5 U.S.C. 6129), 6303(e) and (f), 6304(d)(2), 6306(b), 6308(a) and 6311; subpart F issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(a) and 6311 and E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305(c) and 6311; subpart H issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a) (read with 5 U.S.C. 6129) and 6326(b); subpart I issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, 6334(c), 6336(a)(1) and (d), and 6340; subpart J issued under 5 U.S.C. 6340, 6363, 6365(d), 6367(e), 6373(a); subpart K issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391(g); subpart L issued under 5 U.S.C. 6383(f) and 6387; subpart M issued under Sec. 2(d), Pub. L. 114-75, 129 Stat. 641 (5 U.S.C. 6329 note); subpart N issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329a(c); subpart O issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329b(h); and subpart P issued under 5 U.S.C. 6329c(d).
(a) This subpart implements 5 U.S.C. 6329a, which allows an agency to provide a separate type of paid leave, on a limited basis, for general purposes not covered by other types of leave authorized by other provisions of law. Section 6329a(c) authorizes OPM to prescribe regulations to carry out the statutory provisions on administrative leave, including regulations on the appropriate uses and the proper recording of this leave.
(b) This subpart applies to an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 who is employed in an agency, but does not apply to an intermittent employee who, by definition, does not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek.
(c) As provided in 5 U.S.C. 6329a(d), this subpart applies to employees described in subsection (b) of 38 U.S.C. 7421, notwithstanding subsection (a) of that section.
In this subpart:
(1) Pay;
(2) Leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled under law; or
(3) Credit for time or service.
(a)
(1) Administrative leave may be granted (subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this section) only when:
(i) The absence is directly related to the agency's mission;
(ii) The absence is officially sponsored or sanctioned by the agency; or
(iii) The absence is in the interest of the agency or of the Government as a whole.
(2) Administrative leave is not an entitlement, but is an agency discretionary authority that should be used sparingly, consistent with the sense of Congress expressed in section 1138(b)(2) of Public Law 114-328.
(3) Administrative leave is appropriately used for brief or short periods of time—usually for not more than 1 workday. An incidence of administrative leave lasting more than 1 workday may be approved when determined to be appropriate by an agency. For example, a longer period would be appropriate when the employee is subject to an investigation and his or her retention in duty status is inconsistent with the best interests of the Government, and investigative leave under subpart O of this part is not available because the 10-workday period described in 5 U.S.C. 6329a(b)(1) has not yet expired. (See 5 U.S.C. 6329b(b)(3)(A).)
(4) Administrative leave may not be established (via agency policy or negotiation) as an ongoing or recurring entitlement based on meeting a set of conditions.
(5) A determination that an absence satisfies one of the conditions in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be:
(i) Permitted under policies established by the head of the agency; and
(ii) Reviewed and approved by an official of the agency who is (or is acting) at a higher level than the official making the determination—unless there is no higher-level official in the agency.
(b)
(1) To mark the memory of a deceased former Federal official (see also 5 U.S.C. 6105);
(2) To participate in an event for the employee's personal benefit or the benefit of an outside organization unless the participation would satisfy one or more of the conditions in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(3) As a reward to recognize the performance or contributions of an employee or group of employees (
(4) To engage in volunteer work or other civic activity that is not officially sponsored or sanctioned by the head of the agency, based on the agency's mission or Governmentwide interests.
(a)
(b)
(1) For a full-time employee (including an employee on a regular 40-hour basic workweek or a flexible or compressed work schedule under 5 U.S.C. chapter 61, subchapter II, but excluding an employee on an uncommon tour of duty), the calendar year limitation is 80 hours;
(2) For a full-time employee with an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210, the calendar year limitation is equal to the number of hours in the biweekly uncommon tour of duty (or the average biweekly hours for uncommon tours for which the biweekly hours vary over an established cycle);
(3) For a part-time employee, the calendar year limit is prorated based on the number of hours in the officially scheduled part-time tour of duty established for purposes of charging leave when absent (
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) An agency must use the same minimum charge increments for administrative leave as it does for annual and sick leave under § 630.206.
(b) Employees may be granted administrative leave only for hours within the tour of duty established for purposes of charging annual and sick leave when absent. For full-time employees, that tour is the 40-hour basic
(c) Agencies authorize, and may require, the use of administrative leave by an employee or a category of employees. Employees do not have an entitlement to use administrative leave or to exhaust the permissible 10 workdays per calendar year prescribed under § 630.1404, nor do they have a right to refuse administrative leave when the agency requires its use.
(a)
(1) Administrative leave used for the purposes of an investigation (as described in § 630.1404(d)); or
(2) Administrative leave used for all other purposes.
(b)
(2) Agencies must provide information to the Government Accountability Office as that office requires in order to submit reports to specified Congressional committees required under section 1138(d)(2) of Public Law 114-328, which reports must be submitted not later than 5 years after December 23, 2016, and every 5 years thereafter.
When an employee transfers to another agency or separates from Federal service, the losing agency must certify, in a manner prescribed by OPM, the number of administrative leave hours used by an employee during the current calendar year under one of the two subcategories described in § 630.1406(a). Any agency that employs the employee in the same calendar year must apply the hours reported by a losing agency against the employee's current calendar year limitation under § 630.1404.
(a) This subpart implements 5 U.S.C. 6329b, which allows an agency to provide separate types of paid leave for employees who are the subject of an investigation or in a notice period. OPM has authority to prescribe implementing regulations under 5 U.S.C. 6329b(h)(1).
(b) This subpart applies to an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 who is employed in an agency, excluding:
(1) An Inspector General; or
(2) An intermittent employee who, by definition, does not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek.
(c) As provided in 5 U.S.C. 6329b(i), this subpart applies to employees described in subsection (b) of 38 U.S.C. 7421, notwithstanding subsection (a) of that section.
In this subpart:
(1) An employee's alleged misconduct that could result in an adverse action as described in 5 CFR part 752 or similar authority;
(2) Security concerns, including whether the employee should retain eligibility for logical access to agency facilities and systems under the standards established by Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12 and guidance issued pursuant to that directive; or
(3) Other matters that could lead to disciplinary action.
(1) An internal investigative unit of an agency granting investigative leave under this subpart, which may be composed of one or more persons, such as supervisors, managers, human resources practitioners, personnel security office staff, workplace violence prevention team members, or other agency representatives;
(2) The Office of Inspector General of an agency granting investigative leave under this subpart;
(3) The Attorney General; or
(4) The Office of Special Counsel.
(1) Pay;
(2) Leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled under law; or
(3) Credit for time or service.
(1) Pay;
(2) Leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled under law; or
(3) Credit for time or service.
(1) On the effective date of the adverse action; or
(2) On the date on which the agency notifies the employee that no adverse action will be taken.
(a)
(1) Investigative leave, if the employee is the subject of an investigation; or
(2) Notice leave:
(i) If the employee is in a notice period; or
(ii) Following a placement on investigative leave if, not later than the day after the last day of the period of investigative leave:
(A) The agency proposes or initiates an adverse action against the employee; and
(B) The agency determines that the employee continues to meet one or more of the criteria described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(b)
(1) Determined, after consideration of the baseline factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section, that the continued presence of the employee in the workplace during an investigation of the employee or while the employee is in a notice period, as applicable, may:
(i) Pose a threat to the employee or others;
(ii) Result in the destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation;
(iii) Result in loss of or damage to Government property; or
(iv) Otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests; and
(2) Considered the following options (or a combination thereof):
(i) Keeping the employee in a duty status by assigning the employee to duties in which the employee no longer poses a threat, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section;
(ii) Allowing the employee to voluntarily take leave (paid or unpaid) or paid time off, as appropriate under the rules governing each category of leave or paid time off;
(iii) Carrying the employee in absent without leave status, if the employee is absent from duty without approval; and
(iv) For an employee subject to a notice period, curtailing the notice period if there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed, consistent with 5 CFR 752.404(d)(1); and
(3) Determined that none of the options under paragraph (b)(2) of this section is appropriate.
(c)
(i) The agency determines that such a requirement would not pose a threat, as described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section;
(ii) The employee is eligible to telework under the eligibility conditions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 6502(a) and (b)(4);
(iii) The employee has been participating in a telework program under the agency telework policy during some portion of the 30-day period immediately preceding the commencement of investigative leave (or the commencement of required telework in lieu of such leave under this paragraph (c), if earlier); and
(iv) The agency determines that teleworking would be appropriate.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an employee is considered to be eligible to telework if the agency determines the employee is eligible to telework under agency telework policies described in 5 U.S.C. 6502(a) and is not barred from teleworking under the eligibility conditions described in 5 U.S.C. 6502(b)(4). Any telework agreement established under 5 U.S.C. 6502(b)(2) must be superseded as necessary in order to comply with an agency's action to require telework under 5 U.S.C. 6502(c) and paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) If an employee who is required to telework under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is absent from telework duty without approval, an agency may place the employee in absent without leave status, consistent with agency policies.
(d)
(2) For an employee on investigative leave, an agency may reassess its determination that the employee must be removed from the workplace based on the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and may reassess its determination that the options in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are not appropriate. An agency may reassess its previous determination to require or not require telework under paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) For an employee on notice leave, an agency may reassess its determination that the employee must be removed from the regular worksite based on the criteria in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and may reassess its determination that the options in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are not appropriate.
(4) When an employee is placed on investigative leave or notice leave, the employee must be available to report promptly to an approved duty location if directed by his or her supervisor. Any failure to so report may result in the employee being recorded as absent without leave, which can be the basis for disciplinary action. An employee who anticipates that he or she may be unavailable to report promptly must request scheduled leave or paid time off in advance, as provided under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, to avoid being recorded as absent without leave.
(e)
(1) The nature and severity of the employee's exhibited or alleged behavior;
(2) The nature of the agency's or employee's work and the ability of the agency to accomplish its mission; and
(3) Other impacts of the employee's continued presence in the workplace detrimental to legitimate Government interests, including whether the employee will pose an unacceptable risk to:
(i) The life, safety, or health of employees, contractors, vendors or visitors to a Federal facility;
(ii) The Government's physical assets or information systems;
(iii) Personal property;
(iv) Records, including classified, privileged, proprietary, financial or medical records; or
(v) The privacy of the individuals whose data the Government holds in its systems.
(f)
(g)
(a)
(1) The employee's use of administrative leave under subpart N of this part has reached the 10-workday calendar year limitation described in 5 U.S.C. 6329a(b)(1) and § 630.1404, as converted to hours under § 630.1404(b); and
(2) The agency determines that further investigation of the employee is necessary.
(b)
(1) On-duty service performed under § 630.1503(b)(2)(i) or (c);
(2) Leave or paid time off in lieu of such service under § 630.1503(b)(2)(ii); or
(3) Absence without leave under § 630.1503(b)(2)(iii).
(c)
(1) Describe the limitations of the leave placement, including the duration of leave;
(2) Include notice that, at the conclusion of the period of investigative leave, the agency must take an action under paragraph (d) of this section;
(3) Include notice that placement on investigative leave for 70 workdays or more is considered a “personnel action” for purposes of the Office of Special Counsel's authority to act, in applying the prohibited personnel practices provisions at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9) (see paragraph (i) of this section).
(d)
(1) Return the employee to regular duty status;
(2) Take one or more of the actions under § 630.1503(b)(2);
(3) Propose or initiate an adverse action against the employee as provided under law; or
(4) Extend the period of investigative leave if permitted under paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(ii) Except as provided by paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section, an incremental extension under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is permitted only if approved by the CHCO of an agency, or the designee of the CHCO, after consulting with the investigator responsible for conducting the investigation of the employee.
(iii) In the case of an employee of an Office of Inspector General, an incremental extension under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is permitted only if approved (after consulting with the investigator responsible for conducting the investigation of the employee) by:
(A) The Inspector General or the designee of the Inspector General, rather than the CHCO or the designee of the CHCO; or
(B) An official of the agency designated by the head of the agency within which the Office of Inspector General is located, if the Inspector General requests the agency head make such a designation.
(4)
(g)
(1) The title, position, office or agency subcomponent, job series, pay grade, and salary of the employee;
(2) A description of the duties of the employee;
(3) The reason the employee was placed on investigative leave;
(4) An explanation as to why the employee meets the criteria described in § 630.1503(b)(1)(i) through (iv) and why the agency is not able to temporarily reassign the duties of the employee or detail the employee to another position within the agency;
(5) In the case of an employee required to telework under 5 U.S.C. 6502(c) during a period of investigation, the reasons that the agency required the employee to telework under that section and the duration of the teleworking requirement;
(6) The status of the investigation of the employee;
(7) A certification to the agency by an investigative entity stating that additional time is needed to complete the investigation of the employee and providing an estimate of the amount of time that is necessary to complete the investigation of the employee; and
(8) In the case of a completed investigation of the employee, the results of the investigation and the reason that the employee remains on investigative leave.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) For a full-time employee (including an employee on a regular 40-hour basic workweek or a flexible or compressed work schedule under 5 U.S.C. chapter 61, subchapter II, but excluding an employee on an uncommon tour of duty), the 30-workday increment is converted to 240 hours and the 70-workday limit is converted to 560 hours;
(2) For a full-time employee with an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210, the 30-workday increment is converted to three times the number of hours in the biweekly uncommon tour of duty (or the average biweekly hours for uncommon tours for which the biweekly hours vary over an established cycle), and the 70-workday limit is converted to a number of hours derived by multiplying the hours equivalent of 30 workdays (for a given uncommon tour) times the ratio of 70 divided by 30;
(3) For a part-time employee, the calendar year limit is prorated based on the number of hours in the officially scheduled part-time tour of duty established for purposes of charging leave when absent (
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(1) The reasons for initial authorization of the investigative leave or notice leave, including the alleged action(s) of the employee that required investigation or issuance of a notice of a proposed adverse action;
(2) The basis for the determination made under § 630.1503(b)(1);
(3) An explanation of why an action under § 630.1503(b)(2) was not appropriate;
(4) The length of the period of investigative leave or notice leave;
(5) The amount of salary paid to the employee during the period of leave;
(6) The reasons for authorizing the leave, and if an extension of investigative leave was granted, the recommendation made by an investigator as part of the consultation required under § 630.1504(f)(3);
(7) Whether the employee was required to telework under § 630.1503(c) during the period of the investigation, including the reasons for requiring or not requiring the employee to telework;
(8) The action taken by the agency at the end of the period of leave, including, if applicable, the granting of any extension of a period of investigative leave under § 630.1504(f) or (g); and
(9) Any additional information OPM may require.
(b)
(i) To any committee of jurisdiction;
(ii) To OPM;
(iii) To the Government Accountability Office; and
(iv) As otherwise required by law.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section and § 630.1504(g), the requirement that an agency make records and information on use of investigative leave or notice leave available to various entities is subject to applicable laws, Executive orders, and regulations governing the dissemination of sensitive information related to national security, foreign relations, or law enforcement matters (
(c)
(2) Agencies must provide information to the Government Accountability Office as that office requires in order to submit reports to specified Congressional committees required under section 1138(d)(2) of Public Law 114-328, which reports must be submitted not later than 5 years after December 23, 2016, and every 5 years thereafter.
(a) This subpart implements 5 U.S.C. 6329c, which allows an agency to provide a separate type of paid leave when weather or other safety-related conditions prevent employees from safely traveling to or safely performing work at an approved location due to an act of God, terrorist attack, or other applicable condition. Section 6329c(d) provides OPM with authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the statutory provisions on weather and safety leave, including regulations on the appropriate uses and the proper recording of this leave.
(b) This subpart applies to an employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105 who is employed in an agency, but does not apply to an intermittent employee who, by definition, does not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek.
(c) As provided in 5 U.S.C. 6329c(e), this subpart applies to employees described in subsection (b) of 38 U.S.C. 7421, notwithstanding subsection (a) of that section.
In this subpart:
Subject to other provisions of this subpart, an agency may grant weather and safety leave to employees if they are prevented from safely traveling to or safely performing work at a location approved by the agency due to:
(a) An act of God;
(b) A terrorist attack; or
(c) Another condition that prevents an employee or group of employees from safely traveling to or safely performing work at an approved location.
(a) OPM is responsible for prescribing regulations and guidance related to the appropriate use of leave under this subpart and the proper recording of such leave, including OPM guidance on Governmentwide dismissal and closure policies and procedures that provides for use of consistent terminology in describing various operating status scenarios. In issuing any operating status announcements for the Washington, DC, area, OPM must ensure that the specific policies and procedures related to those announcements are consistent with the regulations in this subpart and with OPM's Governmentwide guidance.
(b) Employing agencies are responsible for:
(1) Establishing and applying policies and procedures related to use of leave under this subpart that are consistent with OPM regulations and guidance described in paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) Ensuring that any agency-specific operating status announcements they issue (for a specific geographic location or area) use terminology required by OPM-issued Governmentwide guidance.
(a)
(2)(i) If, in the agency's judgment, the conditions in § 630.1603 could not reasonably be anticipated, an agency may approve leave under this subpart to the extent an employee was not able to prepare for telework as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and is otherwise unable to perform productive work at the telework site.
(ii) If an employee is prevented from safely working at the approved telework site due to circumstances, arising from one or more of the conditions in § 630.1603, applicable to the telework site, an agency may, at its discretion, provide leave under this subpart to the employee.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, an agency may decide not to approve leave under this subpart when the conditions in § 630.1603(a) do not prevent the employee from safely traveling to or safely performing work at a regular worksite, even if the affected day is a scheduled telework day.
(3) In making a determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an agency must evaluate whether any of the conditions in § 630.1603(a) of this section could be reasonably anticipated and whether the employee took reasonable steps (within the employee's control) to prepare to perform telework at the approved telework site. For example, if a significant snowstorm is predicted, the employee may need to prepare by taking home any equipment (
(b)
(1) The agency determines that travel to or performing work at the worksite is unsafe for emergency employees, in which case the agency may require the employees to work at another location, including a telework site as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, as appropriate; or
(2) The agency determines that circumstances justify granting leave under this subpart to emergency employees.
(a) An agency must use the same minimum charge increments for weather and safety leave as it does for annual and sick leave under § 630.206.
(b) Employees may be granted weather and safety leave only for hours within the tour of duty established for purposes of charging annual and sick leave when absent. For full-time employees, that tour is the 40-hour basic workweek as defined in 5 CFR 610.102, the basic work requirement established for employees on a flexible or compressed work schedule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 6121(3), or an uncommon tour of duty under § 630.210.
(c) Employees may not receive weather and safety leave for hours during which they are on other preapproved leave (paid or unpaid) or paid time off. Agencies should not approve weather and safety leave for an employee who, in the agency's judgment, is cancelling preapproved leave or paid time off, or changing a regular day off in a flexible or compressed work schedule, for the primary purpose of obtaining weather and safety leave.
(a)
(b)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Partial withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document withdraws the remaining part of a notice of proposed rulemaking containing proposed regulations that would have required an exchange or distribution of net value for certain corporate formations and reorganizations to qualify for nonrecognition treatment under the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Other parts of the notice of proposed rulemaking were previously adopted as final regulations. The proposed regulations being withdrawn also addressed the treatment of certain distributions not qualifying for tax-free treatment under section 332 of the Code. The proposed regulations being withdrawn would have affected corporations and their shareholders.
As of July 13, 2017, the proposed revisions to § 1.332-2(b) and (e); the proposed addition of
Jean Broderick at (202) 317-6848 (not a toll-free number).
On March 10, 2005, the Department of the Treasury (the Treasury Department) and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-163314-03) in the
On December 12, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS adopted the Creditor Continuity of Interest provisions of the 2005 Proposed Regulations as final regulations (TD 9434) published in the
The Treasury Department and the IRS are of the view that current law is sufficient to ensure that the reorganization provisions and section 351 are used to accomplish readjustments of continuing interests in property held in modified corporate form. With respect to section 332, the holdings of
The principal author of this withdrawal notice is Jean Broderick of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in its development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the Treasury Department and the IRS withdraw the proposed revisions to § 1.332-2(b) and (e); the proposed addition of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Utah on January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. In the letter accompanying the rule revisions sent to the EPA on July 8, 2015, the Governor stated that no further action is necessary on the January 28, 2013 submittal since it has been superseded. Upon consultation with Utah Department of Air Quality (DAQ) staff, the EPA was informed that this is not accurate. A clarifying letter was sent by the Governor of Utah on June 6, 2017 requesting that the EPA act on both SIP revisions. The submittals request SIP revisions to the State's General Burning rule; a repeal and reenactment of the General Burning rule with changes to applicability, timing, and duration of burning windows, and an amendment to exempt Native American ceremonial burning during restricted burning days.
Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0617 at
Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6385,
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your comments;
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and,
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On January 28, 2013, the State of Utah requested that the EPA approve a repeal and reenactment of R307-202, Emission Standards: General Burning. The rule was changed to add an “Applicability” section that clarifies that the rule only applies to incorporated communities under the authority of a county or municipal fire authority. Additionally, the 30-day burning windows allowing the burning of material covered under R307-202 were eliminated in the amendment because they were a source of localized air quality impairment. This request was made by several local fire chiefs with support from the Utah State Fire Marshal. Language was also added to the rule that states that no person shall burn under R307-202 when the director of the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) issues a public announcement of a mandatory no-burn period.
The changes made to R307-202 include the following five amendments:
(1) Fire marshals were previously permitted to establish a spring 30-day burn window between March 1 and May 30. The rule amendment expanded the spring burning window for the entire period from March 1 to May 30 for Washington, Kane, San Juan, Iron, Garfield, Beaver, Piute, Wayne, Grand, and Emery counties. The burn window was expanded because fire marshals reported adverse localized air quality conditions within the 30-day burn window because the window was actually compressed to a few days where the Clearing Index was over 500. The Utah DAQ relies on a metric called the Clearing Index, an Air Quality/Smoke Dispersal Index, to determine when ventilation and dispersion are adequate for general burning and as an
(2) The spring 30-day burn window has been expanded to the entire burn window from March 30 to May 30 for the remaining portions of the state. The window expansion follows the same rational as item 1 above, that serves to improve air quality during spring burning. The calendar difference between southern and northern counties (covered in items 1 and 2, respectively) is due to climatic differences across the state.
(3) The fall burn window for counties that are in attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM
(4) A new fall burn window has been established for counties that are in nonattainment for the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM
(5) An applicability section was added clarifying that the rule applies to general burning within incorporated communities under the authority of a county or municipal fire authority. This new section was added to address comments received from the State Forester during the public comment period held by the State of Utah. The State Forester was concerned that the public would be confused regarding who has the authority to issue burn permits within different portions of the state. While statutory authority has not changed from when the rule was initially promulgated, this new section was only added for clarity purposes.
The proposed rule revisions capture Utah's restrictions and exemptions for open burning of pollutants to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) NAAQS for PM
Additionally, on July 8, 2015, the State of Utah requested further revisions to R307-202 (Emission Standards: General Burning) that allows Native American tribes to conduct ceremonial burning during restricted burning days when conducted by a “Native American spiritual advisor” as defined by the rule. The Utah DAQ submitted a supplementary analysis to the EPA on May 9, 2017 demonstrating that the exemption allowing ceremonial burning during restricted burning days would not result in adverse air quality conditions consistent with the requirements under CAA Section 110(l). The analysis included a calculation of emissions associated with the expected frequency of ceremonial burning, volume of combustible material, and using the appropriate AP-42 emission factors. The emissions for PM
The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's January 28, 2013 SIP submission, which repeals and reenacts the General Burning provisions in R307-202 with the amendments discussed in Section II. Additionally, the EPA is proposing approval of Utah's July 8, 2015 revisions, which exempts ceremonial burning conducted by a “Native American spiritual advisor” during restricted burn days.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that was published in the
Please see the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189, at
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present information and opinions to us concerning our proposal. Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearings. When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to all significant oral and written comments received on our proposal. To provide opportunities for questions and discussion, we will hold an information session prior to the public hearing. During the information session, EPA staff will be available to informally answer questions on our proposed action. Any comments made to EPA staff during an information session must still be provided orally during the public hearing, or formally in writing within 30 days after completion of the hearings, in order to be considered in the record. At the public hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time available for each commenter to address the proposal to three minutes or less if the hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will not be providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public hearings. Verbatim English language transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.
Dayana Medina, (214) 665-7241;
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On September 27, 2016, we published a rule titled “Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal
The State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), submitted a petition to the EPA dated November 22, 2016, seeking reconsideration and an administrative stay of specific portions of the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Petitions dated November 23, 2016, seeking reconsideration and administrative stay of the FIP were also submitted by Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC (collectively “Entergy”) and the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC), which are owners of Flint Creek, White Bluff, and Independence. The Energy and Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA), which is an ad-hoc association that has members who own or operate Flint Creek, White Bluff, and Independence, also submitted a petition dated November 28, 2016, seeking reconsideration and administrative stay of the FIP.
In a letter dated April 14, 2017, EPA announced the convening of a proceeding to reconsider the appropriate compliance dates for the NO
We also note that in a letter dated June 7, 2017, the State committed to develop and submit to EPA this summer a Regional Haze SIP revision to replace our FIP, which would include NO
We have carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay submitted by the State of Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA regarding the 18-month compliance date for the NO
The State of Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA stated in their petitions that EPA proposed a 3-year NO
We agree with the petitioners that our FIP proposal did not specifically state that we were soliciting public comment on shorter NO
Entergy's petition, which was incorporated by reference by both AECC and EEAA, asserted that the comments
Entergy and EEAA pointed out that the installation of the NO
Entergy and EEAA also explained in their petitions that the affected companies have internal planning procedures that affect their schedule for installation of the NO
AECC asserted in its petition that a 3-year NO
We agree with the petitioners that the comments submitted by environmental groups on which we based our decision to shorten the NO
We acknowledge that we were not aware of and thus could not take into consideration the companies' internal planning and prudence review procedures when we shortened the NO
After carefully considering the petitions for reconsideration of the NO
The revisions to the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP we are proposing at this time are limited to the NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(c)(7)
(c)(25)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Utah on January 4, 2016, and certain revisions submitted on January 19, 2017, for the coarse particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0298 at
James Hou, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6210,
a.
b.
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were designated nonattainment for PM
On July 8, 1994, the EPA approved the PM
On September 26, 1995, the EPA designated Ogden City as nonattainment for PM
On July 3, 2002 Utah submitted SIP revisions adopting rule R307-110-10, which incorporated revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part A, and rule R307-110-17, which incorporated revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX Part H. These revisions were approved by the EPA on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The revisions to Utah's SIP Section IX Part H removed several stationary sources subject to reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements from the initial list of RACT sources in the Utah County nonattainment area, based on SIP threshold limits for PM
On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted SIP revisions to R307-110-17 titled “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission Limits” and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. The titles for Subsection IX.H.1-4 include: (1) General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM
1. Section R307-110-17 incorporates the amendments to Section IX.H into state rules, thereby making them effective as a matter of state law. This is a ministerial provision and does not by itself include any control measures.
1. Subsection IX.H.1. General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM
2. Subsection IX.H.2. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Salt Lake County PM
3. Subsection IX.H.3. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah County PM
4. Subsection IX.H.4. Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices. R307-110-17 Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission Limits. This section establishes interim emission limits for sources whose new emission limits under Subsections IX.H.2 and 3 are based on controls that are not currently installed, with the provision that all necessary controls needed to meet the emission limits under Subsection IX.H.2 and IX.H.3 shall be installed by January 1, 2019. A summary of the proposed interim emission limits is outlined in Table 5 below.
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4, submitted January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017 are intended to strengthen the SIP. Therefore, CAA section 110(l) requirements are satisfied.
Specifically, the proposed emission limits for the retained sources in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area will result in a reduction of PM
The proposed emissions from Geneva Nitrogen, Provo City Power Plant, and the Springville City Corporation—Whitehead Power Plant are consistent with the 2002 SIP revisions for Utah County. Additionally, this proposed action adds three sources—BYU, Payson City Power and PacifiCorp Energy—Lake Side Power Plant. Both BYU and Payson City Power have been in existence since the original 1994 SIP, and BYU was initially included as a source in the original 1994 SIP, but was removed in 2002. The inclusion of these two sources do not reflect an increase in emissions into the Utah County nonattainment area airshed, but rather reflect a change in the approach of how stationary sources are included into the SIP. PacifiCorp Energy—Lake Side Power Plant is also being added into the SIP, but its addition does not reflect an emissions increase to the nonattainment area because the facility was required to use offsetting emissions, largely made available through the closure of the Geneva Steel facility. The closing of Geneva Steel resulted in the removal of approximately 1,700 tpy PM
The EPA is proposing approval and requesting public comment on revisions to Administrative Rule R307-110-17 and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4 as submitted by the State of Utah on January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017. These revisions establish emissions limitations and related requirements for certain stationary sources of PM
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the DAQ PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve for the Entergy R. S. Nelson facility (Nelson) (1) a portion of a revision to the Louisiana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on February 20, 2017; and (2) a revision submitted for parallel processing on June 20, 2017, by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve these two revisions, which address the Best Available Retrofit Technology requirement of Regional Haze for Nelson for sulfur-dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129, at
Jennifer Huser, 214-665-7347,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE), shows that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the average visual range in many Class I areas (
CAA requirements to address the problem of visibility impairment continue to be implemented. In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas. On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and the EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit Technology” (BART). Larger “fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants” are one of these source categories. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The evaluation of BART for electric generating units (EGUs) that are located at fossil-fuel fired power plants having a generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts must follow the “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule” at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART Guidelines”). Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides for greater progress towards improving visibility than BART.
On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional haze (2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or 2008 SIP revision). We acted on that submittal in two separate actions. Our first action was a limited disapproval
On February 10, 2017, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended to address the deficiencies related to BART for EGU sources (February 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or February 2017 SIP revision). We proposed approval of that SIP revision as it pertains to all of the BART-eligible EGUs in the State on May 19, 2017, except for Nelson, which we address herein.
On June 20, 2017, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision with a request for parallel processing, specifically addressing the BART requirements for Nelson. (June 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP or June 2017 SIP revision). This revision, along with the Nelson portion of the February 20, 2017 SIP revision, are the subject of this proposed action. Parallel processing of the June 2017 SIP revision means that, at the same time Louisiana is completing the corresponding public comment and rulemaking process at the state level, we are proposing action on it. Because Louisiana has not yet finalized the June 2017 SIP revision that we are parallel processing, we are proposing to approve this SIP revision in parallel with Louisiana's rulemaking activities. If changes are made to the State's proposed rule after the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in the EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then the EPA may be obligated to withdraw our initial proposed action and re-propose. If there are no changes to the parallel-processed version, EPA would proceed with final rulemaking on the version finally adopted by Louisiana and submitted to EPA, as appropriate after consideration of public comments.
Nelson is located in Westlake, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The nearest Class I areas are Breton National Wilderness Area in Louisiana, located 264 miles east of the facility and Caney Creek Wilderness Area in Arkansas, located 286 miles north of the facility.
In our partial disapproval and partial limited approval of the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP, we approved the LDEQ's identification of 76 BART-eligible sources, which included Nelson.
Because Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP relied on CAIR as a BART alternative for EGUs, the submittal did not include a determination of which BART-eligible EGUs were subject to BART. On May 19, 2015, we sent a CAA Section 114 letter to the Nelson BART-eligible source in Louisiana. In that letter, we noted our understanding that the source was actively working with the LDEQ to develop a SIP. However, in order to be in a position to develop a FIP should that be necessary, we requested information regarding the BART-eligible sources, including Nelson. The Section 114 letter required the source to conduct modeling to determine if the source was subject to BART, and included a modeling protocol. The letter also requested that a BART analysis be performed in accordance with the BART Guidelines for Nelson if determined to be subject to BART. We worked closely with the BART-eligible facility and with the LDEQ to this end, and all the information we received from the
The preamble to the BART Guidelines advise that, “for purposes of determining which sources are subject to BART, States should consider a 1.0 deciview
The BART Guidelines recommend that the 24-hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period be modeled, unless this rate reflects periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. The maximum 24-hour emission rate (lb/hr) for NO
The BART-eligible units at the Nelson facility have visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv. Therefore, Nelson is subject to BART and must undergo a five-factor analysis. See our CALPUFF Modeling TSD for further information.
We note that, in addition to CALPUFF modeling, Appendix D of the February 2017 SIP revision includes the results of CAMx modeling
Louisiana's February 2017 SIP revision relies on CSAPR as a BART alternative for NO
In determining BART, the state must consider the five statutory factors in section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
STEP 1—Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies,
STEP 2—Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,
STEP 3—Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control Technologies,
STEP 4—Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and
STEP 5—Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
As mentioned previously, we disapproved portions of Louisiana's 2008 Regional Haze SIP due to the State's reliance on CAIR as an alternative to source-by-source BART for EGUs.
Unit 4 is permitted to combust natural gas, No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils, and refinery fuel gas. Unit 4 has a maximum heat-rated capacity of 5,400 MMBtu/hour and exhausts out of one stack. It has flue gas recirculation equipment installed for control of NO
Unit 6 burns coal as its primary fuel and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oils as secondary fuels. Unit 6 has a maximum heat-rated capacity of 6,216 MMBtu/hour and exhausts out of one stack. It has an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) with flue gas conditioning for control of PM emissions. Unit 6 has installed Separated Overfire Air Technology (SOFA) and a Low NO
These units are currently permitted to burn natural gas and fuel oil. However, Entergy has not burned fuel oil at either unit in several years. Further, Entergy has no current operational plans to burn fuel oil. The LDEQ did not conduct a five-factor BART analysis for these units. The preamble to the BART Guidelines states:
Consistent with the CAA and the implementing regulations, States can adopt a more streamlined approach to making BART determinations where appropriate. Although BART determinations are based on the totality of circumstances in a given situation, such as the distance of the source from a Class I area, the type and amount of pollutant at issue, and the availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in some situations, one or more factors will clearly suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source's impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that controls would be costly and any improvements in visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for example, where a source emits thousands of tons of SO
The SO
To address SO
Before fuel oil firing is allowed to take place at Unit 4, and the auxiliary boiler at the Facility, a revised BART determination must be promulgated for SO
We propose to approve the AOC as sufficient to meet the SO
In assessing SO
DSI is performed by injecting a dry reagent into the hot flue gas, which chemically reacts with SO
SO
Utilization of coal with a lower sulfur content will also result in a reduction in SO
Entergy assessed SDA and wet FGD as being capable of achieving SO
Entergy determined that DSI could achieve an SO
Entergy presented cost-effectiveness figures for each control they evaluated. Entergy estimated that the cost-effectiveness of switching to lower sulfur coal (LSC) would be $597/ton of emissions removed, the cost-effectiveness of DSI would be $5,590/ton, the cost-effectiveness of enhanced DSI would be $5,611/ton, the cost-effectiveness of SDA would be $4,536/ton, and the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD would be $4,413/ton. See Appendix D of the February 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP. In general, Entergy's DSI and scrubber cost calculations were based on a propriety database, so we were unable to verify any of the company's costs. We solicit comment with respect to any information that would support or refute the undocumented costs in Entergy's evaluation. We also note that Entergy's control cost estimates included costs not allowed under our Control Cost Manual (
Regarding the cost to switch to lower sulfur coal, Entergy states that its $597/ton cost-effectiveness value is based on a lower sulfur coal premium of $0.50/ton, but Entergy does not provide any documentation to support this figure. We examined information regarding Entergy's coal purchases for Nelson Unit 6 from the Energy Information Administration. This information indicated that, although there is some variability in the data, the premium Entergy has historically paid for lower sulfur coal has averaged higher than $0.50/ton.
Because of these issues, we developed our own control cost analyses, which we present in our TSD. Table 1 summarizes the results of our analyses. For our cost-effectiveness calculations, we used a SO
In assessing energy impacts, Entergy identified additional power requirements associated with operating DSI, SDA, and wet FGD. Documentation issues aside, these auxiliary-power costs were accounted for in the variable operating costs in the cost evaluation. Entergy did not identify any energy impacts associated with switching to a lower sulfur coal. We agree with LDEQ's identification of the energy impacts associated with each of the control options.
In assessing non-air quality environmental impacts, Entergy noted that DSI, SDA, and wet FGD would add spent reagent to the waste stream generated by the facility. Entergy accounted for these waste-disposal costs in the variable operating costs in the cost evaluation. See our TSD for further information. Entergy did not identify any non-air quality environmental impacts associated with switching to a lower sulfur coal. We agree with LDEQ's identification of the non-air quality environmental impacts associated with each of the control options.
In assessing remaining useful life, Entergy indicated this factor did not impact the evaluation of controls as there is no enforceable commitment in place to retire Unit 6. We agree with LDEQ that Entergy's use of a 30-year equipment life for the DSI, SDA, and wet FGD cost evaluations, which is consistent with the Control Cost Manual, was therefore appropriate.
In assessing visibility impacts, Entergy evaluated the visibility impacts and potential benefits of each control option (See Appendix D for Entergy's visibility BART analysis for Nelson Unit 6). However, Entergy's CALPUFF modeling included errors in its estimates of sulfuric acid and PM emissions.
EPA's CAMx modeling for Unit 6 directly evaluated the maximum baseline visibility impacts and potential benefits from DSI. In addition to the DSI modeled benefits, visibility benefits for SDA, wet FGD, and low-sulfur coal were estimated based on linear extrapolation for the average across the top ten impacted days using the modeled baseline and DSI visibility impacts, and estimated emission reductions. We note that the baseline emission rate modeled is based on 24-hr actual emissions during the baseline period (2000-2004), while the control scenario emission rates are based on anticipated 30-day emission rates, as noted in the table below. At a maximum heat input of 6,126 MMBtu/hr for the boiler, the baseline short-term emission rate is approximately 1.2 lb/MMBtu for the 2000-2004 baseline. The results of this modeling for the maximum-impact day and the average across the top ten most impacted baseline days are summarized in Table 2. We note that wet FGD is estimated to provide a very small visibility benefit over SDA on average across the top ten most impacted baseline days, so we do not show the results for wet FGD in this table. See the CAMx Modeling TSD for a full description of the modeling and model results.
The LDEQ weighed the statutory factors, reviewed Entergy's and EPA's information, and concluded that SO
The LDEQ noted that Nelson Unit 6 is currently equipped with an ESP to control PM emissions, the visibility impacts from PM emissions are small, and that any additional controls beyond the ESP would have minimal visibility benefits and would not be cost-effective. Therefore, the LDEQ determined that PM BART is an emission limit of 317.61 lb/hr, consistent with the use of the existing ESP.
We propose to approve LDEQ's proposed finding in the June 2017 SIP revision that the visibility impacts from Unit 6's PM emissions are so minimal that any additional PM controls would result in very minimal visibility benefits that would not justify the cost of any upgrades and/or operational changes needed to achieve a more stringent emission limit. Unit 6 is currently equipped with an ESP for controlling PM emissions. The PM control efficiency of ESPs varies somewhat with the design of the ESP, the resistivity of the PM, and the maintenance of the ESP. We do not have information on the control efficiency of the ESP in use at Unit 6. However, reported control efficiencies for well-maintained ESPs typically range from greater than 99% to 99.9%.
We are also proposing to approve the LDEQ's February 2017 SIP revision as revised by the LDEQ's June 2017 SIP revision that addresses BART for the Nelson facility, including the State's proposed finding that lower sulfur coal is the appropriate SO
As the energy industry evolves, the LDEQ has committed to continue to work with EGUs throughout Louisiana to evaluate the operation of utilities. As such, the LDEQ will engage in discussions with Entergy about any potential changes in usage or emission rates at the Nelson facility. Any such changes will be considered for reasonable progress for future planning periods as appropriate.
We are proposing to approve the remaining portion of the Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revision submitted on February 10, 2017, related to the Entergy Nelson facility and the SIP revision submitted to the EPA for parallel processing on June 20, 2017 that establishes BART for the Nelson facility. We propose to approve the BART determination for Nelson Units 6 and 4 and Unit 4 auxiliary boiler, and the AOC that makes emission limits that represent BART permanent and enforceable for the purposes of regional haze. We solicit comment with respect to any information that would support or refute the undocumented costs in Entergy's evaluation for SO
The EPA has made the preliminary determination that the June 2017 SIP revision requested by the State to be parallel processed is in accordance with the CAA and consistent with the CAA and the EPA's policy and guidance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing action on the June 2017 SIP revision in parallel with the State's rulemaking process. After the State completes its rulemaking process, adopts its final regulations, and submits these final adopted regulations as a revision to the Louisiana SIP, the EPA will prepare a final action. If changes are made to the State's proposed rule after the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in the EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then the EPA may be obligated to withdraw our initial proposed action and re-propose.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control technology.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan for Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) units. On April 29, 2016 the EPA promulgated the Federal plan for SSI units to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d)/129 of the Clean Air Act. The Federal plan addresses the implementation and enforcement of the emission guidelines applicable to existing SSI units located in areas not covered by an approved and currently effective state plan. The Federal plan imposes emission limits and other control requirements for existing affected SSI facilities which will reduce designated pollutants.
On January 24, 2017, the NJDEP signed a Memorandum of Agreement which is intended to be the mechanism for the transfer of authority between the EPA and the NJDEP and defines the policies, responsibilities and procedures pursuant to the Federal plan for existing SSI units.
Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0132 at
Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212)
The
The EPA is proposing to approve the NJDEP's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce a Federal plan and to adhere to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed between the EPA and the NJDEP, as further explained below. The NJDEP requested delegation of authority of the Federal plan for existing applicable Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) units constructed on or before October 14, 2010. See 40 CFR part 62, subpart LLL. The Federal plan was promulgated by the EPA to implement emission guidelines (see 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM) pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The purpose of this delegation is to acknowledge the NJDEP's ability to implement a program and to transfer primary implementation and enforcement responsibility from the EPA to the NJDEP for existing applicable sources of SSI units. While the NJDEP is delegated the authority to implement and enforce the SSI Federal plan, nothing in the delegation agreement shall prohibit the EPA from enforcing the SSI Federal plan.
The EPA is proposing this action to:
• Give the public the opportunity to submit comments on the EPA's proposed action, as discussed in the
• Fulfill a goal of the CAA to place state governments in positions of leadership for air pollution prevention and control; and
• Allow the NJDEP to implement and enforce a Federal plan promulgated by the EPA that implements emission guidelines pursuant to sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.
On October 12, 2016, the NJDEP submitted to the EPA a request for delegation of authority from the EPA to implement and enforce the Federal plan for existing SSI units. The EPA prepared the MOA that defines the policies, responsibilities, and procedures by which the Federal plan will be administered by both the NJDEP and the EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR part 62, subpart LLL for SSI units. The MOA is the mechanism for the transfer of responsibility from the EPA to the NJDEP.
Both the EPA and the NJDEP signed the MOA in which the State agrees to the terms and conditions of the MOA and accepts responsibility to implement and enforce the policies, responsibilities and procedures of the SSI Federal plan. The transfer of authority to the NJDEP became effective upon signature by the NJDEP on January 24, 2017.
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA require states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing solid waste combustor facilities and municipal solid waste landfills (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type and the EPA has established emission guidelines (EG) for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria has been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) (national ambient air quality standards) or section 112 (hazardous air pollutants) of the CAA, but emissions of which would be subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources under section 111(b). In addition, section 129 of the CAA also requires the EPA to promulgate EG for solid waste incineration units that emit specific air pollutants or a mixture of air pollutants. These pollutants include organics (dioxins and dibenzofurans), carbon monoxide, metals (cadmium, lead and mercury), acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen), particulate matter and opacity (as appropriate).
On March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15372), the EPA promulgated NSPS and EG for SSI units, 40 CFR part 60, subparts LLLL and MMMM, respectively. The designated facility to which the EG applies is existing SSI units, as stipulated in subpart MMMM, that commenced construction on or before October 14, 2010. See 40 CFR 60.5060 for details.
Pursuant to section 129 of the CAA, state plan requirements must be “at least as protective” as the EG and become federally enforceable upon approval by the EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. For states that fail to submit a plan, the EPA is required to develop and implement a Federal plan within two years following promulgation of the EG. The EPA implementation and enforcement of the Federal plan is viewed as an interim measure until states assume their role as the preferred implementers of the EG requirements stipulated in the Federal plan. Accordingly, the EPA encourages states to develop their own plan, or request delegation of the Federal plan, as the NJDEP has done.
The EPA evaluated the NJDEP's request for delegation of the SSI Federal plan pursuant to the provisions of the SSI Federal plan and the EPA's Delegation Manual.
NJDEP has met all of the EPA's delegation requirements as described above. The reader may view the NJDEP's letter to the EPA requesting delegation and the MOA signed by both parties at
The EPA has evaluated the NJDEP's submittal for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The NJDEP has met all the requirements of the EPA's guidance for obtaining delegation of authority to implement and enforce the SSI Federal plan. The NJDEP entered into a MOA with the EPA and it became effective on January 24, 2017. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the NJDEP's request dated October 12, 2016 for delegation of authority of the Federal plan for existing SSI units. The EPA will continue to retain certain specific authorities reserved to the EPA in the SSI Federal plan and as indicated in the MOA (
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a State plan submission that complies with the provisions of CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b)(2) and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d) and 7429(b)(2); 40 CFR 62.02(a). Thus, in reviewing State plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The State of Oklahoma has applied to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Oklahoma. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by August 14, 2017.
Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2016-0344 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alima Patterson, Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permits Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-8533) and Email address
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The State of Louisiana has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Louisiana. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by August 14, 2017.
Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2016-0558, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alima Patterson, Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permits Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-8533 and email address
For additional information, please see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Washington has applied to EPA for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed Washington's application, and we have determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and are proposing to authorize the State's changes. The EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received by August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2017-0285, at
Barbara McCullough, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206) 553-2416, email:
States that have received final authorization from the EPA pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
Washington State's hazardous waste management program was initially approved on January 30, 1986 and became effective on January 31, 1986. As explained in Section E below, it has been revised and reauthorized numerous times since then. On January 26, 2017, EPA received the State's most recent authorization revision application. This authorization revision application requests federal authorization for Washington's Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste, effective as of December 31, 2014, and seeks to revise its federally-authorized hazardous waste management program to include Federal hazardous waste regulations promulgated through July 1, 2013.
The EPA has reviewed Washington's application to revise its authorized program and proposes to determine that it meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as amended. Therefore, with respect to these revisions we are proposing to grant Washington final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization revision application. Washington will continue to have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151)) with the exception of the non-trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also referred to as the “1873 Survey Area” or “Survey Area”) located in Tacoma, Washington (see section “J” below for full description) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized states before the states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Washington, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
If Washington is authorized for these changes, a person in Washington subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements. Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any applicable Federal requirements, such as, HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued requirements. Washington continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste management program for violations of this program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:
• Conduct inspections;
• Require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Suspend, terminate, modify or revoke permits;
• Abate conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment; and
• Enforce RCRA requirements and take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
The action to approve these revisions would not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Washington has requested federal authorization are already effective under State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.
If the EPA receives comments on this proposed action, we will address those comments in our final action. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this proposed authorization, you must do so at this time.
Washington initially received final authorization on January 30, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), to implement the State's hazardous waste management program. The EPA granted authorization for changes to Washington's program on September 22, 1987, effective on November 23, 1987 (52 FR 35556); August 17, 1990, effective October 16, 1990 (55 FR 33695); November 4, 1994, effective November 4, 1994 (59 FR 55322); February 29, 1996, effective April 29, 1996 (61 FR 7736); September 22, 1998, effective October 22, 1998 (63 FR 50531); October 12, 1999, effective January 11, 2000 (64 FR 55142); April 11, 2002, effective April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17636); April 14, 2006, effective June 13, 2006 (71 FR 19442); October 30, 2006 effective December 29, 2006 (71 FR 63253) and June 18, 2010 effective July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44144) .
The EPA is proposing to authorize revisions to Washington's authorized program described in Washington's official program revision application, submitted to the EPA on January 26, 2017 and deemed complete by the EPA on February 23, 2017. The EPA proposes to determine, subject to public review and comment, that Washington's hazardous waste management program revisions as described in the January 23, 2017 State's authorization revision application satisfy the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Regulatory revisions that are less stringent than the Federal program requirements and those regulatory revisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are not authorized. Washington's authorized hazardous waste management program, as amended by these provisions, remains equivalent to, consistent with, and is no less stringent than the Federal RCRA program. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State for the following program changes as identified in Table 1 and Table 2 below.
The provisions listed in Table 1 and Table 2 are from the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and are analogous to the RCRA regulations as indicated in the Tables. The RCRA regulations that the State incorporated by reference are those as published in 40 CFR parts 260 through 265, 268, 270, and 279, as of July 1, 2013, unless otherwise noted. Table 1 identifies new State rules that the EPA is authorizing as equivalent or more stringent than the Federal program. Table 2 identifies State-initiated changes to previously authorized State provisions. (Note: in Table 2 some State provisions have no direct Federal analog but are related to particular paragraphs, sections, or parts of the Federal hazardous waste regulations) The referenced analogous State authorities were State adopted and effective as of December 31, 2014.
Under RCRA section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State rules that are less stringent than the Federal program. Any state rules that are less stringent do not supplant the Federal regulations. State rules that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are allowed but are not authorized. State rules that are equivalent to, and State rules that are more stringent than the Federal program may be authorized, in which case they are enforceable by the EPA.
This section does not discuss all the program differences, because in most instances Washington writes its own version of the Federal hazardous waste rules. Persons must consult Tables 1 and 2, in Section F, for the specific State regulations that the EPA is proposing to authorize. This section discusses rules of particular interest where the EPA proposes to find that the State program is more stringent and will be authorized. Table 2 above indicates all the rules that the EPA determined to be more stringent than the federal rules. The section below also discusses an example of a rule where the State program is broader in scope and cannot be authorized. Certain portions of the Federal program are not delegable to the states because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions. The EPA does not delegate import/export functions. Under RCRA regulations found in 40 CFR part 262, the EPA will continue to implement requirements for import/export functions. However, the State rules (WAC 173-303-230) reference the EPA's export and import requirements, and the State has amended these references to include those changes promulgated in the Federal Rule on Corrections to Errors in the Code of Federal Regulations (71 FR 40254, July, 7, 2006). Additional information regarding the EPA's analysis concerning the State's rules that are more stringent and/or broader in scope than the federal rules can be found in the docket.
States are allowed to seek authorization for state requirements that are more stringent than Federal requirements. The EPA has authority to authorize and enforce those parts of a state's program the EPA finds to be more stringent than the Federal program. This section does not discuss each more stringent finding made by the EPA, but persons can locate such findings by consulting Table 1 in Section F, and by reviewing the docket for these rules. This action proposes to authorize the State program for each more stringent requirement.
a. Satellite Accumulation—On December 20, 1984 (49 FR 49568), the Federal Satellite Accumulation rule was promulgated. The State adopted a satellite accumulation rule in 1986 and adopted a revised rule on December 8, 1993. On December 18, 2014, the State adopted another revision to WAC 173-303-200(2) with all instances of “per waste stream” removed for consistency with the Federal rule at 40 CFR 262.34(c). The State rule has an additional provision for satellite accumulation requirements whereby the State can require additional management requirements on a case-by-case basis, which renders the State rule more stringent than the Federal rule. Additional details regarding the State's adoption of the revised satellite accumulation rule are available in the docket.
b. Academic Laboratory Generator Standards—The State's Academic Laboratories Generator Standards contain more stringent requirements than the corresponding Federal rules (73 FR 72912, December 1, 2008).
i. WAC 173-303-235(4)(a), (4)(b)(ii), (5)(a), and (5)(b)(ii), are more stringent because the State requires small quantity generators to obtain EPA/state identification numbers, whereas the Federal rules at 40 CFR 262.203(a) and (b)(ii) and 40 CFR 262.204(a) and (b)(2) exempt the comparable Conditionally
ii. WAC 173-303-235(4)(b) and (5)(b) are more stringent than 40 CFR 262.203(b) and 262.204(b) introductory paragraphs due to the State requirement for small quantity generators to complete the entire Washington State Dangerous Waste Site Identification form, whereas the Federal rules exempt CESQGs from filling in a site identification number.
iii. WAC 173-303-235(7)(a)(i), 235(9)(d)(i)(A) and 235(9)(d)(ii)(A) require accumulation start dates and full container dates to be attached to the containers rather than, at a minimum, be associated with them as required by 40 CFR 262.206(a)(1) and 262.208(d)(1)(i).
iv. WAC 173-303-235(14)(a)(iv) requires eligible academic entities to maintain records for five years after laboratory cleanouts rather than three years as required in 40 CFR 262.213(a)(4).
On December 12, 2010 (75 FR 79304), the Federal Academic Laboratories Generator Standards Technical Corrections rules were promulgated. The State's rules at WAC 173-303-235(15)(a)(i) and (b)(i) are more stringent than the Federal rules because they require the accumulation date to appear on the container label, whereas the Federal rules at 40 CFR 262.214(a)(1) and (b)(1) allow the information to be associated with, but not necessarily placed on, the container. Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with the State's adoption of the Federal Academic Laboratories Generator Standards are available in the docket.
c. Characteristic of Reactivity—On January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), the State received authorization for its dangerous waste identification rules including WAC 173-303-090(7) Characteristic of reactivity. On January 18, 2010 (75 FR 12989), the Federal rule at 40 CFR 261.23(a)(8) was revised to update the forbidden explosives regulation under 40 CFR 261.23 Characteristic of reactivity. The State revised the corresponding WAC 173-303-090(7)(a)(viii), but included Division 1.5 explosives (refer to the US Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Class 1 explosives chart) not included in the Federal rule. As a result, the State's rule is more stringent than the Federal rule. Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with forbidden explosives under the characteristic of reactivity rule are available in the docket.
d. Exception Reporting—On January 18, 2010 (75 FR 12989), the Federal Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications rules were promulgated. Under 40 CFR 262.42(c)(2), the 35/45/60 day timeframes for exception reporting begin the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter forwarding the hazardous waste from the designated facility to the alternate facility. The State rule at WAC 173-303-220(2)(e)(ii) is more stringent because it does not have a 60-day window for Medium Quantity Generators (equivalent to Federal Small Quantity Generators) to submit exception reports to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with Exception reports are available in the docket.
e. Independent Qualified Registered Professional Engineers—On December 18, 2014, the State adopted rule changes to require Independent Qualified Registered Professional Engineers (IQRPEs) to certify certain activities. The revised State rules at WAC 173-303-200(1)(b)(iv), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A)(III), 400(3)(c)(xxii)(B), 64690, 650(4)(c), 650(5)(d)(ii)(B), 665(2)(a)(i), 806(4)(d)(v), 806(4)(e)(iii)(A)(I), and 806(4)(h)(ii)(A)(I) are more stringent than corresponding Federal rules at 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(iv), 262.34(g)(4)(i)(C), 265.1101(c)(3)(iii), 264.554 (IBR, 045(1)), 264.226(c), 264.227(d)(2)(ii), 264.301(a)(1), 270.17(d), 270.18(c)(1)(i), and 270.21(b)(1)(i). Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with IQRPE requirements are available in the docket.
The State has added a time limit for special wastes that are stored at transfer stations under WAC 173-303-073(2)(e)(v) in this rule proposal. The federal rules do not regulate these special wastes which are state only wastes and defined at WAC 173-303-040; therefore, the regulation of these wastes is broader in scope than the federal rules. As noted above, broader in scope rules are not authorized by the EPA.
Washington will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. Permits issued by EPA prior to authorizing Washington for these revisions would continue in force until the effective date of the State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste management permit, at which time, the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit, or allow the existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities located in Indian Country. The EPA will not issue new permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Washington is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Washington is not yet authorized.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. This is done by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart WW for this authorization of Washington's program revisions until a later date.
The EPA's proposed decision to authorize the Washington hazardous waste management program does not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this authorization, “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, with the exception of the non-trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also referred to as the “1873 Survey Area” or “Survey Area”) located in Tacoma, Washington. The EPA retains jurisdiction over “Indian Country”. Effective October 22, 1998 (63 FR 50531, September 22, 1998) the State of Washington was authorized to implement the State's federally-authorized hazardous waste management program on the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The authorization did not extend to trust lands within the reservation. The EPA retains its authority to implement RCRA on trust lands and over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area.
This proposed rule seeks to revise the State of Washington's authorized hazardous waste management program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This proposed rule complies with
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant”, and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the EO. The EO defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of EO 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR part 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed rule will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. The EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, the EPA has also determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.
This proposed rule 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 various levels of government, as specified in EO 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175 because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it proposes to approve a state program.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under EO 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because this rule proposes to authorize pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This proposed action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Denial of petitions for addition of health conditions.
On February 22, 2017, the Administrator of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program received a petition (Petition 016) to add Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List). On May 10, 2017, the Administrator received a second petition (Petition 017) to add the same health conditions to the List. Upon reviewing the scientific and medical literature, including information provided by the two petitioners, the Administrator has determined that the available evidence does not have the potential to provide a basis for a decision on whether to add Parkinson's disease and/or parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, to the List. The Administrator also finds that insufficient evidence exists to request a recommendation of the WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), to publish a proposed rule, or to publish a determination not to publish a proposed rule.
The Administrator of the WTC Health Program is denying these petitions for the addition of health conditions as of July 13, 2017.
Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS: C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone (855) 818-1629 (this is a toll-free number); email
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347, as amended by Pub. L. 114-113), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service (PHS) Act,
All references to the Administrator of the WTC Health Program (Administrator) in this notice mean the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) or his designee.
Pursuant to section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act, interested parties may petition the Administrator to add a health condition to the List in 42 CFR 88.15 (2017). Within 90 days after receipt of a petition to add a condition to the List, the Administrator must take one of the following four actions described in section 3312(a)(6)(B) of the PHS Act and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2): (1) Request a recommendation of the STAC; (2) publish a proposed rule in the
In addition to the regulatory provisions, the WTC Health Program has developed policies to guide the review of submissions and petitions,
A valid petition must include sufficient medical basis for the association between the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the health condition to be added; in accordance with WTC Health Program policy, reference to a peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic study about the health condition among 9/11-exposed populations or to clinical case reports of health conditions in WTC responders or survivors may demonstrate the required medical basis.
On February 22, 2017, the Administrator received a petition (Petition 016) from a WTC responder who worked at Ground Zero, requesting the addition of “young onset Parkinson Disease”
The first of the eight peer-reviewed, published studies provided in Petition
The eight references offered as medical basis for Petition 016 suggested a potential association between exposure to the 9/11 agent manganese and manganese-induced parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease and established a sufficient medical basis to consider the submission a valid petition for manganese-induced parkinsonism. Although the petitioner requested the addition of “young onset Parkinson Disease” and “Parkinsonia Syndrome,” the medical basis provided by the petitioner primarily included studies concerning manganese-induced parkinsonism; therefore, the Administrator determined that the petitioner requested the addition of both Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism.
On May 10, 2017, the Administrator received a petition from a WTC survivor (Petition 017), requesting the addition of “Parkinson's Disease” to the List. The petition referenced five peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies of heavy metal exposure, including manganese, and Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism in non-9/11-exposed populations.
The first of the five peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies provided in Petition 017, reference 1, “Increased Risk of Parkinsonism Associated With Welding Exposure” by Racette
These five studies suggested a potential association between exposure to known 9/11 agents and Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, and thus provided a sufficient medical basis to consider the submission a valid petition. Because the medical basis provided by the petitioner included studies concerning both Parkinson's disease and manganese-induced parkinsonism, the Administrator determined that the petitioner requested the addition of both Parkinson's disease and manganese-induced parkinsonism.
Since the Administrator determined that the scope of both Petition 016 and
In response to Petition 016 and Petition 017, and pursuant to the Program policy on the addition of non-cancer health conditions to the List,
Neither the references provided in the petitions nor the literature search conducted by the Program identified any peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies of either Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, in 9/11-exposed populations. Since no peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies of Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, in 9/11 populations were identified, the Program was unable to conduct an evaluation of scientific evidence to determine the likelihood of a causal association between 9/11 exposures and the petitioned health conditions.
Because no peer-reviewed, published, epidemiologic studies of Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, in 9/11 populations were identified, the Administrator has determined that insufficient evidence is available to take further action at this time, including either proposing the addition of Parkinson's disease or parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, to the List (pursuant to PHS Act, sec. 3312(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 42 CFR 88.16(a)(2)(ii)) or publishing a determination not to publish a proposed rule in the
For the reasons discussed above, the Petition 016 and Petition 017 requests to add Parkinson's disease and/or parkinsonism, including manganese-induced parkinsonism, to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions are denied.
The Secretary, HHS, or his designee, the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), authorized the undersigned, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program, to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the WTC Health Program. Anne Schuchat, M.D., Acting Director, CDC, and Acting Administrator, ATSDR, approved this document for publication on July 6, 2017.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (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; (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 August 14, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a draft environmental assessment relative to the release of three parasitoids,
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 14, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director, Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2327, email:
Lilies (
APHIS' review and analysis of the proposed action are documented in detail in a draft environmental assessment (EA) entitled “Field release of
The EA may be viewed on the
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a draft environmental assessment relative to the control of swallow-worts (
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 14, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director, Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2327, email:
Two species of swallow-wort (
APHIS' review and analysis of the proposed action are documented in detail in a draft environmental assessment (EA) entitled “Field release of the leaf-feeding moth,
The EA may be viewed on the
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved information collection for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) Regulations for the reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with the WIC FMNP Program regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before September 11, 2017.
Comments may be sent to: Kurtria Watson, Chief, Policy Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 524, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Kurtria Watson at 703-305-2196 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Kurtria Watson at 703-605-4387.
Section 17(m)(8) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. 1786(m)(8), and the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) regulations at 7 CFR part 248 require that certain program-related information be collected and that full and complete records concerning FMNP operations are maintained. The information reporting and recordkeeping burdens are necessary to ensure appropriate and efficient management of the FMNP program. These burden activities are covered by this Information Collection Request (ICR) which include requirements that involve the authorization and monitoring of State agencies; the certification of FMNP participants; the nutrition education that is provided to participants; farmer and market authorization, monitoring, and management; and financial and participation data (using FNS 683 B approved under OMB Control Number: 0584-0594, Expiration Date: 06/2019). State plans (using FNS 339 approved under OMB Control Number: 0584-0332, Expiration Date: 02/2019) are the principal source of information about how each State agency operates its FMNP program. Information collected from participants and local agencies is collected through State-developed forms or Management Information Systems. The information collected is used by the Department of Agriculture to manage, plan, evaluate, make decisions and report on FMNP program operations.
Revisions in burden hours are due to program adjustments that primarily reflect expected changes in the number of Individuals/Household FMNP participants; this affected public was not included in the currently approved information collection request. The oversight is being remedied with this request and we are now including the burden on individuals/households. Additionally, there are changes to the number of FMNP authorized farmers and markets; and FMNP authorized State agencies who are participating in this program.
The currently approved burden for this collection is 23,661. FNS is seeking 931,145, an increase of 907,484 burden hours. The currently approved total annual responses is 18,433.68. We are requesting 4,968,387 which is an increase of 4,949,953.35 total annual responses. The currently approved reporting burden is 23,331.98; we are requesting 517,177. This revision increased the reporting burden by 493,845 hours. The currently approved burden for recordkeeping is 329 and we are requesting 413,968. This increased the recordkeeping burden by 413,639, and increased the total approved reporting and recordkeeping burden by 907,484 hours.
See the table below for the estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
July 26, 2017, 1:00 p.m. EDT.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.
Open to the public.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on July 26, 2017, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board Members will discuss open investigations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General, financial and organizational updates, and a review of the agency's action plan. The Board will also discuss the ExxonMobil Baton Rouge investigation. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the
A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: (888) 466-9863 Confirmation Number 8812164#.
The CSB is an independent, non-regulatory federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical incidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Hillary Cohen, Communications Manager, at
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
New approaches to the design of the 2020 Census are classified into four key innovation areas. These areas have been the subject of Census Bureau testing this decade to identify methodological improvements, technological advances, and possibilities for cost savings. One of these innovation areas is Optimizing Self-Response, which is focused on improving methods for increasing the number of people who take advantage of self-response options, including responding by internet. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test is designed to evaluate several strategies for optimizing self-response, including two contact strategies, either or both of which may be included in the design of the 2020 Census. Two of the other innovation areas—Utilizing Administrative Records and Third-Party Data and Reengineering Field Operations—will be incorporated into the functionality that will be tested in this test. In particular, this Peak Operations portion of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will encompass operations and systems related to (1) Optimizing Self-Response, including contact strategies, questionnaire content, and language support; (2) Update Leave (UL), including technological and operational testing; (3) Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU), including technological and operational improvements; and (4) Group Quarters (GQ), including technological and operational testing. The UL and GQ operations are being fielded for the first time this decade.
The remaining innovation area—Reengineering Address Canvassing—contains innovations that have been tested in the 2016 Address Canvassing test and in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing precedes the enumeration operations included in and creates the address list for this 2018 End-to-End Census Test Peak Operations test. The Address Canvassing portion of this test was described in an earlier
Optimizing Self-Response is focused on improving methods for increasing the number of people who take advantage of self-response options. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will include two different mailing strategies to optimize the rate at which the public self-responds to the decennial census, thereby reducing costs of the 2020 Census by decreasing the workload for following up at nonresponding units.
In addition, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test provides the Census Bureau with an opportunity to enhance the user experience, performance, and functionality of the internet self-response instrument.
The Update Leave (UL) operation is designed for areas where the Census Bureau has concerns about accurate mail delivery and needs to determine the Census block location of each housing unit. The current design capitalizes on 2020 Census methodological improvements such as internet self-response and automated field operations. UL is conducted mostly in geographic areas that have one or more of the following characteristics:
• Do not have city-style addresses like 123 Main Street.
• Do not receive mail through city-style addresses.
• Receive mail at post office boxes rather than at physical addresses.
• Have unique challenges associated with accessibility, such as dirt roads or seasonal access.
• Have recently been affected by natural disasters.
• Have high concentrations of seasonally vacant housing.
The following objectives are being tested for Update Leave:
• Integrating listing operation and systems.
• Testing the ability to link a questionnaire ID to an address.
• Testing field supervisor to enumerator ratios.
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will allow the Census Bureau to continue to refine, optimize, and assess the operational procedures and technical design of the Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU) operation. NRFU is a field operation for determining housing unit status (occupied, vacant, or delete) and for gathering the enumeration data at addresses for which no self-response was received. This test will build on the results of previous field tests this decade where the NRFU operation has been conducted. In particular, NRFU is now a fully automated operation, whereas it was performed using paper materials in the 2010 Census.
The 2018 End-to-End Census Test will inform Census Bureau technological and operational planning and design for the enumeration of the population residing in group quarters (GQs). GQs are living quarters where people who are typically unrelated have group living arrangements and frequently are receiving some type of service. College/University student housing and nursing/skilled-nursing facilities are examples of GQs. To date, some small-scale testing has been done to test electronic transmission of GQ's enumeration responses. The 2018 End-to-End Census Test expands on these results to allow the opportunity to evaluate procedures and technologies for conducting GQ enumeration operations. The set of operations planned for GQ enumeration is GQ Advance Contact, Service-Based Enumeration, and, finally, GQ Enumeration. These operations have been used in previous censuses. The GQ Advance Contact is an operation where facility contact and planning data are collected, including the ability of the GQ facility to provide electronic records for the enumeration. Service-Based Enumeration has the objective of counting individuals who will not be enumerated at a living quarter but are receiving some type of service. The GQ Enumeration is the final stage of enumerating individuals residing at the GQ.
The Census Bureau recognizes that the OMB is continuing to lead the discussion among federal agencies and other stakeholders on race/ethnicity from the perspective of data collection and dissemination guidance and standards, and that the final determination has not been made on the format of the race/ethnicity question for the 2020 Census. If it is determined that the combined race/ethnicity question format may be used for the 2020 Census (versus the separate race and Hispanic Origin questions used for the 2010 Census), it will be crucial for the Census Bureau to ensure that critical operations are fully prepared to go into production for the 2020 Census using the combined question.
Therefore, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test data collection operations will use the combined race/ethnicity question version (which also includes a Middle Eastern or North African category) to further its analysis and understanding of mode differences for the race/ethnicity responses before deploying the 2020 Census questionnaire. Particular test objectives are:
•
•
•
The results of this test will inform the Census Bureau's final preparations in advance of the 2020 Census. In particular, conducting a live operation will ensure all the systems, instruments, and processes are functioning correctly or will provide indicators of what needs to be fixed. In addition, metrics collected during the operation will provide additional data to be used for budget and operational planning purposes.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before September 11, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Susan Pozzanghera, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, (301) 763-7169 or via email at
The Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS) covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in wholesale trade sector as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This sector includes distributors, manufacturers' sales branches and offices, as well as agents and brokers.
Firms are selected for this survey using a stratified random sample where strata are defined by type of operation, industry, and annual sales size. The sample is drawn from the Business Register (BR), which is the Census Bureau's master business list containing basic economic information for over 7.4 million employer businesses and over 22.5 million non-employer businesses.
The BR obtains information using direct data collections and administrative record information from federal agencies. The AWTS sample is updated quarterly to reflect business “births” and “deaths” by adding newly established employer businesses and deleting companies when it is determined they are no longer active.
The AWTS introduced a new sample for 2016. The Census Bureau requested two years of data from all sample firms in order to link the old and new samples, ensuring that the published estimates continue to be reliable and accurate. The 2017 AWTS and subsequent years will request one year of data until a new sample is selected again in five years. The 2017 AWTS will also collect detailed business expenditure items and sales tax data, in response to a request for this data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). These data items are collected on the AWTS survey in years ending in 2 and 7, which coincide with the economic census collection.
The AWTS data is collected electronically using the Census Bureau's secure online reporting instrument (Centurion). This electronic system of reporting is designed to allow respondents easier access, convenience and flexibility. In the few cases of companies that have no access to the Internet, the Census Bureau can arrange for the companies to provide data to an analyst via telephone.
The AWTS survey collects data on annual sales, e-commerce sales, operating expenses, purchases, commissions, and year-end inventories. There are five electronic form types based on the specific type of operation and structure of the sampled firm. Each form asks a different subset of the items listed above based on relevance to their type of operation. These data are used to satisfy a variety of public and business needs such as economic market analysis, company performance, and forecasting future demands. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses the data in developing the Nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates and the national accounts' input-output tables. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data as an input to its producer price indices and in developing productivity measurements.
Results will be available by type of operation and item collected at the United States summary level approximately fifteen months after the end of the reference year.
The Census Bureau primarily collects this information via the Internet and, in rare cases when respondents have no access to the internet, by telephone.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International
Effective July 13, 2017.
Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-9179.
On July 17, 1986, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain in-shell pistachios from Iran.
On June 30, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) and 752 of the Act, that revocation of the
The products covered by the order are raw, in-shell pistachio nuts from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the inner hard shells, and edible meats from Iran.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
The National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction (NACWIR or Committee), will hold three upcoming meetings continuing the work of the Committee. Interested members of the public will be able to view the video conferences and participate from remote locations by calling in to a central phone number. The final agendas and any meeting materials will be posted on the NWIRP Web site at
The NACWIR will hold meetings (1) via video conference on Monday, July 31, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time; (2) in person and via video conference on Wednesday, August 23, and Thursday, August 24, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time; and (3) via video conference on Monday, September 18, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. All meetings will be open to the public.
The August meeting will be held in Building 215, Rm. C103 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The address is 100 Bureau Dr., Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070. Questions regarding the meetings should be sent to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. For instructions on how to participate in each meeting, please see the
Steve Potts, Management and Program Analyst, NWIRP, Engineering Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. He can also be contacted by email at
The NACWIR was established in accordance with the requirements of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015, Public Law 114-52. The NACWIR is charged with
• Trends and developments in the natural, engineering, and social sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation;
• The priorities of the Strategic Plan for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP or Program);
• The coordination of the Program;
• The effectiveness of the Program in meeting its purposes; and
• Any revisions to the Program which may be necessary.
Background information on NWIRP and the Committee is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NACWIR will hold an open meeting via video conference on Monday, July 31, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to assess and develop recommendations on (1) the priorities of the Draft Strategic Plan for the NWIRP, and (2) trends and developments in the natural, engineering, and social sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the NACWIR Web site at
All participants in the meeting are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday, July 24, 2017. Please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Steve Potts at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NACWIR will meet in person and via video conference on Wednesday, August 23, and Thursday, August 24, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to assess and develop recommendations on: (1) The coordination of the Program; (2) the effectiveness of the Program in meeting its purposes; and (3) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the NACWIR Web site at
All participants in the meeting are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday, August 16, 2017. To participate in the video conference, please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Steve Potts at
The meeting will be held in Building 215, Rm. C103 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The address is 100 Bureau Dr., Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070. All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. To attend the meeting in person, please submit your full name, email address, and phone number to Steve Potts. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mr. Steve Potts. Mr. Potts' email address is
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On August 23, 2017, approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved near the end of the day for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. All those wishing to speak must submit their request by email to the attention of Mr. Steve Potts,
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated, and those who were unable to participate are invited to submit written statements to NACWIR, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8611, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, or electronically by email to
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NACWIR will hold an open meeting via video conference on Monday, September 18, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to assess and develop recommendations on: (1) The coordination of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (Program); (2) the effectiveness of the Program in meeting its purposes; and (3) any revisions to the Program which may be necessary. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the NACWIR Web site at
All participants in the meeting are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday, September 11, 2017. Please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Steve Potts at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 140, Gustavus, AK 99826 (Responsible Party: Philip N. Hooge), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on humpback (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 14, 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 (APPS) 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.
Courtney Smith or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The proposed permit would authorize takes of the above listed species during vessel surveys to gather information currently lacking regarding their ecology, behavior and population status to enable information-based resource management in southeastern Alaska especially Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve (GBNPP). The core study area is Glacier Bay/Icy Strait, but includes all nearshore waters of the mainland and Alexander Archipelago. Takes by harassment may occur by close approach for vessel surveys, photo-identification, behavioral observation, collection of feces/sloughed skin, biopsy sampling and passive acoustic recording. The maximum number of annual approaches to whales (risking Level B harassment) will be 2500 humpback whales, 500 killer whales, 20 minke whales and 20 gray whales. Biopsy takes on 50 humpback and 50 killer whales are also requested. The permit would be valid for five years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources [Jonathan Ambrose, Responsible party] 2070 U.S. Highway 278 Southeast, Social Circle, GA 30025, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 14, 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 (APPS) 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
Shasta McClenahan or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a 5-year permit to take marine mammals for research in the Atlantic Ocean and off the west coast of Florida during vessel and manned and unmanned aerial surveys. The objectives of the research are to continue North Atlantic right whale (NARW;
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of fee percentage.
NMFS publishes notification of a 1.57 percent fee for cost recovery under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program. This action is intended to provide holders of crab allocations with the fee percentage for the 2017/2018 crab fishing year so they can calculate the required payment for cost recovery fees that must be submitted by July 31, 2018.
The Crab Rationalization Program Registered Crab Receiver permit holder is responsible for submitting the fee liability payment to NMFS on or before July 31, 2018.
Suja Hall, 907-586-7228.
NMFS Alaska Region administers the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (Program) in the North Pacific. Fishing under the Program began on August 15, 2005. Regulations implementing the Program can be found at 50 CFR part 680.
The Program is a limited access system authorized by section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Program includes a cost recovery provision to collect fees to recover the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the Program. The Program implemented under the authority of section 313(j) is consistent with the cost recovery provisions included under section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS developed the cost recovery provision to conform to statutory requirements and to reimburse the agency for the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the Program. The cost recovery provision allows collection of 133 percent of the actual management, data collection, and enforcement costs up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of crab harvested under the Program. The Program provides that a proportional share of fees charged for management and enforcement be forwarded to the State of Alaska for its share of management and data collection costs for the Program. The cost recovery provision also requires the harvesting and processing sectors to each pay half the cost recovery fees. Catcher/processor quota shareholders are required to pay the full fee percentage for crab processed at sea.
A crab allocation holder generally incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of crab landed. The crab allocations include Individual Fishing Quota, Crew Individual Fishing Quota, Individual Processing Quota, Community Development Quota, and the Adak community allocation. The Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit holder must collect the fee liability from the crab allocation holder who is landing crab. Additionally, the RCR permit holder must collect his or her own fee liability for all crab delivered to the RCR. The RCR permit holder is responsible for submitting this payment to NMFS on or before July 31, in the year following the crab fishing year in which landings of crab were made.
The dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the fee percentage (not to exceed 3 percent) by the ex-vessel value of crab debited from the allocation. Specific details on the Program's cost recovery provision may be found in the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 680.44.
Each year, NMFS calculates and publishes in the
Based upon the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of costs to value for the 2016/2017 fishery was 1.57 percent. Therefore, the fee percentage will be 1.57 percent for the 2017/2018 crab fishing year. This is a decrease of 0.03 percent from the 2016/2017 fee percentage of 1.60 percent (81 FR 45458; July 14, 2016). The change in the fee percentage from 2016/2017 to 2017/2018 is due to decreases in direct program costs incurred by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. These reduced costs were due to minor decreases in personnel, training, and supplies related to managing the Program in the 2016/2017 crab fishing year. Additionally, the value of crab harvested under the Program decreased by $39.7 million. The decrease in the value of the fishery offset the decreases in direct program costs and limited the change in the fee percentage from 2016/2017 to 2017/2018.
16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Deepwater Wind, LLC, (DWW) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of New York in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0486) (Lease Area) and along potential submarine cable routes to a landfall location in Easthampton, New York (“Submarine Cable Corridor”) (collectively the Lease Area and Submarine Cable Corridor are the Project Area).
This Authorization is effective from June 16, 2017 through June 15, 2018.
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, we adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
NMFS' EA will be made available at
On December 1, 2016, NMFS received application request from DWW for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to 2017 geophysical survey investigations in the area of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease area #OCS-A-0486 Lease Area and along potential submarine cable routes to a landfall location in Easthampton, New York (Project Area) designated and offered by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), to support the development of an offshore wind project. DWW's request was for take of 18 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment of a small number of 18 species and take by Level A harassment of 3 species. Neither DWW nor NMFS expects mortality to result from this activity; and therefore, an IHA is appropriate. NMFS determined that the
DWW plans to conduct a geophysical and geotechnical survey in the Project Area to support the characterization of the existing seabed and subsurface geological conditions in the Project Area. Surveys will include the use of the following equipment: Shallow and medium-penetration sub-bottom profiler (chirper, boomer, and sparker) used during the HRG survey, multi-beam depth sounder, side-scan sonar, vibracores, and cone penetration tests (CPTs). The planned geophysical survey activities would occur for 168 days beginning in June 2017, and geotechnical survey activities would take place in June 2017 and last for approximately 75 days. Take, by Level B Harassment only of individuals of 18 species of marine mammals is anticipated to result from the specified activities. No serious injury or mortality is expected from DWW's HRG and geotechnical surveys. A detailed description of the planned marine site characterization project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to DWW was published in the
There are 36 species of marine mammals that potentially occur in the Northwest Atlantic OCS region (BOEM,
Further information on the biology, ecology, abundance, and distribution of those species likely to occur in the Project Area can be found in section 4 of DWW's application, and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (see Waring
The effects of underwater noise from HRG and geotechnical activities for the marine site characterization project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
This section provides the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns resulting from exposure to HRG and geotechnical surveys. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures (when considered in combination with the operational parameters and characteristics of the
In summary, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) The area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) The density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
DWW's planned activity includes the use of continuous (vibracore and DP thruster) and impulsive (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). DWW's marine site characterization activities include the use of impulsive (sparkers) and non-impulsive (vibracore and DP thruster) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
DWW took into consideration sound sources using the potential operational parameters, bathymetry, geoacoustic properties of the Project Area, time of year, and marine mammal hearing ranges. Results of a sound source verification study in a nearby location showed that estimated maximum distance to the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) MMPA threshold for all water depths for the HRG survey sub-bottom profilers (the HRG survey equipment with the greatest potential for effect on marine mammal) was approximately 447 m from the source, which equated to a propagation loss coefficient of 20logR (equivalent to spherical spreading). The estimated maximum critical distance to the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) MMPA threshold for all water depths for the vibracore was approximately 1,778 from the source using spherical spreading. For sparkers and vibracore, we doubled these distances to conservatively account for the uncertainty in predicting propagation loss in a similar but different location. The estimated maximum critical distance to the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) MMPA threshold for all water depths for the drill ship DP thruster was approximately 500 m from the source based on hydroacoustic modeling results (Subacoustech 2016). DWW and NMFS believe that these estimates represent a conservative scenario and that the actual distances to the Level B harassment threshold may be shorter, as the calculated distance was doubled for the sparker system and vibracore, the SL for the sparker system was conservatively based on a source that was louder than the equipment planned for use in this project, and there are some sound measurements taken in the Northeast that suggest a
The Zone of influence (ZOI) is the extent of the ensonified zone in a given day. The ZOI was calculated using the following equations:
Where distance is the maximum survey trackline per day (110 kilometer (km)) and r is the distance to the 160 dB (for impulsive sources) and 120 dB (for non-impulsive sources) isopleths. The isopleths for sparkers and vibracores were calculated using 20logR, and the resulting isopleths were doubled as a conservative mechanism to allow for any uncertainty in propagation loss. The isopleths for the DP thruster was calculated using a transmission loss coefficient of 11.12, which was based on field verification study results (Subacoustech 2016).
DWW used the user spreadsheet to calculate the isopleth for the loudest sources (sparker, vibracore, DP thruster). The sparker was calculated with the following conditions: source level of 186 dB SEL, source velocity of 1.93 meters per second (m/s), repetition rate of 2.48, and a weighting factor adjustment of 1.2 and 2.75 based on the appropriate broadband source. Isopleths were less than 1 m for all hearing groups (Table 4) except high-frequency cetaceans, which was 5.12 m. Take by Level A harassment can be avoided with the implementation of the shutdowns during all planned activities. Shutdown zones exceed the Level A zones for sparkers. The vibracore used the following parameters: source level of 185 rms, distance of source level measurement at 1 m, duration of 1 hour, propagation loss of 20, and weighting factor adjustment of 1.7, 6.2, and 20 based on the spectrograms for this equipment. Isopleths are summarized in Table 4 and no Level A takes are requested during the use of the vibracore. The DP thruster was defined as non-impulsive static continuous source with a source level of 150 dB rms, Propagation loss of 11.12 based on the spectrograms for this equipment (Subacoustech 2016), an activity duration of 1 and 3 hours and weighting factor adjustment of 1.7 and 5. Isopleths were less than 3 m for all hearing groups (Table 4); therefore, no Level A takes were requested for this source.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
DWW estimated species densities within the planned project area in order to estimate the number of marine mammal exposures to sound levels above the 120 dB Level B harassment threshold for continuous noise (
The data used as the basis for estimating cetacean density (“D”) for the Lease Area are sightings per unit effort (SPUE) derived by Duke University (Roberts
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Estimated takes were calculated by multiplying the species density (animals per km
DWW used a distance to the 160 dB Level B threshold of 447 m, which was doubled to be conservative for any uncertainty in propagation loss, for a maximum distance of 894 m for the sparker system. The ZOI of 199.048 km
DWW used a maximum distance to the 120 dB Level B threshold of 499 m for DP thrusters. The ZOI of 0.782 km
DWW used a distance to the 120 dB Level B zone of 1,778 m, which was doubled to be conservative, for a maximum distance of 3,556 m for vibracore. The ZOI of 39.738 km
DWW's requested take numbers are provided in Table 5 and are also the number of takes NMFS is authorizing. DWW's calculations do not take into account whether a single animal is harassed multiple times or whether each exposure is a different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Tables 5 are the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during the HRG and geotechnical surveys (
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a straight line
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
With NMFS' input during the application process, and as per the BOEM Lease, DWW will implement the following mitigation measures during site characterization surveys utilizing HRG survey equipment and use of the DP thruster and vibracore. The mitigation measures outlined in this section are based on protocols and procedures that have been successfully implemented and resulted in no observed take of marine mammals for similar offshore projects and previously approved by NMFS (ESS 2013; Dominion 2013 and 2014).
PSOs will monitor the following exclusion/monitoring zones for the presence of marine mammals:
• A 200-m exclusion zone during all geophysical and geotechnical operations.
• A 400-m exclusion zone during the use of sparkers.
These exclusion zones are exclusion zone specified in stipulations of the OCS-A 0486 Lease Agreement.
• A 208-m exclusion zone for harbor porpoise only, during vibracore activities, only.
Visual monitoring of the established exclusion zone(s) s will be performed by qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. Observer qualifications will include direct field experience on a marine mammal observation vessel and/or aerial surveys in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. An observer team comprising a minimum of four NMFS-approved PSOs and two certified Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) operators (PAM operators will not function as PSOs), operating in shifts, will be stationed aboard the survey vessel. PSOs and PAM operators will work in shifts such that no one monitor will work more than 4 consecutive hours without a 2-hour break or longer than 12 hours during any 24-hour period. Each PSO will monitor 360 degrees of all visible waters to the extent practicable so as to not undermine effectiveness of shutdown zone monitoring..
PSOs will be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine mammals approaching or within the established exclusion zone(s) during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate and enforce the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate. PAM operators will communicate detected vocalizations to the Lead PSO on duty, who will then be responsible for implementing the necessary mitigation procedures.
PSOs will be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distances to marine mammals located in proximity to the vessel and/or exclusion zone using range finders. Reticulated binoculars will also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the siting and monitoring of marine species. During night operations, PAM (see
The PSOs will begin observation of all zone(s) at least 60 minutes prior to ramp-up of HRG survey equipment. Use of noise-producing equipment will not begin until the exclusion zone is clear of all marine mammals for at least 60 minutes, as per the requirements of the BOEM Lease.
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the 200-m or 400-m exclusion zones, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown (during HRG survey) or powerdown (during DP thruster use) procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals.
At all times, the vessel operator will maintain a separation distance of 500 m from any sighted North Atlantic right whale as stipulated in the
As per the BOEM Lease, alternative monitoring technologies (
Given the range of species that could occur in the Project Area, the PAM system will consist of an array of hydrophones with both broadband (sampling mid-range frequencies of 2 kilohertz (kHz) to 200 kHz) and at least one low-frequency hydrophone (sampling range frequencies of 75 Hertz (Hz) to 30 kHz). The PAM operator(s) will monitor the hydrophone signals for detection of marine mammals in real time both aurally (using headphones) and visually (via the monitor screen displays). PAM operators will communicate detections to the Lead PSO on duty who will ensure the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measure.
DWW will ensure that vessel operators and crew maintain a vigilant watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and slow down or stop their vessels to avoid striking these species. Survey vessel crew members responsible for navigation duties will receive site-specific training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike avoidance measures will include the following, except under extraordinary circumstances when complying with these requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at risk:
• All vessel operators will comply with 10 knots (<18.5 km per hour [km/h]) speed restrictions in any Dynamic Management Area (DMA).
• All survey vessels will maintain a separation distance of 500 m or greater from any sighted North Atlantic right whale.
• If underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sited North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (<18.5 km/h) or less until the 500 m minimum separation distance has been established. If a North Atlantic right whale is sited in a vessel's path, or within 100 m to an underway vessel, the underway vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral. Engines will not be engaged until the North Atlantic right whale has moved outside of the vessel's path and beyond 100 m. If stationary, the vessel must not engage engines until the North Atlantic right whale has moved beyond 100 m.
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 100 m or greater from any sighted non-delphinoid (
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m or greater from any sighted delphinoid cetacean. Any vessel underway will remain parallel to a sighted delphinoid cetacean's course whenever possible and avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction. Any vessel underway reduces vessel speed to 10 knots or less when pods (including mother/calf pairs) or large assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are observed. Vessels may not adjust course and speed until the delphinoid cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m and/or abeam (
• All vessels will maintain a separation distance of 50 m or greater from any sighted pinniped.
The training program will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of surveys. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify that the crew members understand and will comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey event.
Between watch shifts, members of the monitoring team will consult the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the presence of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations. The planned survey activities will, however, occur outside of the seasonal management area (SMA) located off the coasts of Delaware and New Jersey. The planned survey activities will also occur in June/July and September, which is outside of the seasonal mandatory speed restriction period for this SMA (November 1 through April 30).
Throughout all survey operations, DWW will monitor the NMFS North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the Lease Area under survey, within 24 hours of the establishment of the DMA, DWW will work with NMFS to shut down and/or alter the survey activities to avoid the DMA.
As per the BOEM Lease, a ramp-up procedure will be used for HRG survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or re-start of HRG survey activities. A ramp-up procedure will be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the Project Area by allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment use. The ramp-up procedure will not be initiated during daytime, nighttime, or periods of inclement weather if the exclusion zone cannot be adequately monitored by the PSOs using the appropriate visual technology (
The DP vessel thrusters will be engaged from the time the vessel leaves the dock to support the safe operation of the vessel and crew while conducting geotechnical survey activities and require use as necessary. Therefore, there is no opportunity to engage in a ramp-up procedure.
As per the BOEM Lease, if a non-delphinoid (
As per the BOEM Lease, if a delphinoid cetacean or pinniped is detected at or within the exclusion zone, the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) must be powered down to the lowest power output that is technically feasible. Subsequent power up of the survey equipment must use the ramp-up procedures described above and may occur after (1) the exclusion zone is clear of a delphinoid cetacean and/or pinniped for 60 minutes or (2) a determination by the PSO after a minimum of 10 minutes of observation that the delphinoid cetacean or pinniped is approaching the vessel or towed equipment at a speed and vector that indicates voluntary approach to bow-ride or chase towed equipment.
If the HRG sound source (including the sub-bottom profiler) shuts down for reasons other than encroachment into the exclusion zone by a marine mammal including but not limited to a mechanical or electronic failure, resulting in in the cessation of sound source for a period greater than 20 minutes, a restart for the HRG survey equipment (including the sub-bottom profiler) is required using the full ramp-up procedures and clearance of the exclusion zone of all cetaceans and pinnipeds for 60 minutes. If the pause is less than 20 minutes, the equipment may be restarted as soon as practicable at its operational level as long as visual surveys were continued diligently
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations (ITAs) must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following general goals:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
DWW submitted marine mammal monitoring and reporting measures as part of the IHA application.
The PSOs will begin observation of the monitoring zone during all HRG survey activities and all geotechnical operations where DP thrusters are employed. Observations of the monitoring zone will continue throughout the survey activity and/or while DP thrusters are in use. PSOs will be responsible for visually monitoring and identifying marine mammals approaching or entering the established monitoring zone during survey activities.
Observations will take place from the highest available vantage point on the survey vessel. General 360-degree scanning will occur during the monitoring periods, and target scanning by the PSO will occur when alerted of a marine mammal presence.
Data on all PSO observations will be recorded based on standard PSO collection requirements. This will include dates and locations of construction operations; time of observation, location and weather; details of the sightings (
DWW must conduct field verification of the exclusion zone (the 160 dB isopleth) for HRG survey equipment and the exclusion zone (the 120 dB isopleth) for DP thruster use for all equipment operating below 200 kHz. DWW must take acoustic measurements at a minimum of two reference locations and in a manner that is sufficient to establish source level (peak at 1 meter) and distance to the 160 dB isopleths (the B harassment zones for HRG surveys) and 120 dB isopleth (the Level B harassment zone) for DP thruster use. Sound measurements must be taken at the reference locations at two depths (
DWW may use the results from its field-verification efforts to request modification of the exclusion/monitoring zones for the HRG or geotechnical surveys. Any new exclusion/monitoring zone radius
DWW will provide the following reports as necessary during survey activities:
• The Applicant will contact NMFS and BOEM within 24 hours of the commencement of survey activities and again within 24 hours of the completion of the activity.
• As per the BOEM Lease: Any observed significant behavioral reactions (
•
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the event. NMFS would work with DWW to minimize reoccurrence of such an event in the future. DWW would not resume activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that DWW discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that DWW discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
• Within 90 days after completion of the marine site characterization survey activities, a technical report will be provided to NMFS and BOEM that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, estimates the number of marine mammals that may have been taken during survey activities, and provides an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all monitoring tasks. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS.
• In addition to the Applicant's reporting requirements outlined above, DWW will provide an assessment report of the effectiveness of the various mitigation techniques,
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
As discussed in the
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in
ESA-listed species for which takes are authorized are North Atlantic right, sperm, sei and fin whales. Recent estimates of abundance indicate a potential declining right whale population; however, this may also be due to low sighting rates in areas where right whales were present in previous years, due to a shift in habitat use patterns (Waring
The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by (1) giving animals the opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy; (2) reducing the intensity of exposure within a certain distance by reducing the DP thruster power; and (3) preventing animals from being exposed to sound levels that may cause injury. Additional vessel strike avoidance requirements will further mitigate potential impacts to marine mammals during vessel transit to and within the Study Area.
DWW did not request, and NMFS is not authorizing, take of marine mammals by serious injury or mortality. NMFS expects that most takes would be in the form of a very small number of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of brief startling reaction and/or temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring)—reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to DWW's HRG and geotechnical survey activities would result in only short-term and relatively infrequent effects to individuals exposed and not of the type or severity that would be expected to be additive for the small portion of the stocks and species likely to be exposed. NMFS does not anticipate the authorized takes to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival, because although animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, they are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Additionally, major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success, are not expected.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The takes authorized for the HRG and geotechnical surveys represent less than 1 percent for 11 stocks (sei whale, minke whale, sperm whale, false killer whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, long-finned pilot whale, white-beaked dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, and gray seal); 1.05 percent for Atlantic white-sided dolphin; 1.48 percent for harbor porpoise; 2.04 percent for short-beaked common dolphin; 4.51 percent for fin whale; 6.43 percent for humpback whale; and 14.68 percent for harbor seal (Table 6). Just under 24 percent of the North Atlantic right whale stock has take authorized; however, this is for the entire duration of the project activities (mid-June through December), and while this stock of right whales may be present in very low numbers in the winter months (November and December) in this area, most animals have moved off the feeding grounds and have moved to the breeding grounds during this time. We do not expect a large number of right whales to be in the area for nearly one third of the project duration. Only repeated takes of some individuals are likely and this is an overestimate of the number of individual right whales that may actually be impacted by project activities. However, we analyzed the potential for take of 23.86 percent of the individual right whales in the context of the anticipated effects described previously.
These take estimates represent the percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B harassment and are small numbers relative to the affected species or stock sizes. Further, the take numbers represent the instances of take and are the maximum numbers of individual animals that are expected to be harassed during the project; it is possible that some exposures may occur to the same individual.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of three listed species, which are listed under the ESA: fin, humpback, and North Atlantic right whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, BOEM consulted with NMFS on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. NOAA's GARFO issued a Biological Opinion concluding that these activities may adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of fin whale, humpback whale, or North Atlantic right whale. The Biological Opinion can be found online at
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed in June 2017. A copy of the EA and FONSI are posted at
NMFS has issued an IHA to Deepwater Wind for the potential harassment of small numbers of 18 marine mammal species incidental to high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and geotechnical survey investigations associated with marine site characterization activities off the coast of New York in the Project Area, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public webinar meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 2017, from 2 p.m. until 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. The webinar can be accessed at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The goal of this webinar is to understand the importance of Atlantic chub mackerel (
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed toM. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Linnea Pearson, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 14, 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 (APPS) 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.
Sara Young or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to study the thermoregulatory strategies (insulation, thermogenic mechanisms) by which Weddell seal pups maintain euthermia in air and in water and examine the development of diving capability (oxygen stores) as the animals prepare for independent foraging. This study will take place near McMurdo Station in Antarctica. In each field season (two field seasons total), ten pups (20 total) will be handled at four time points
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2017.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting
John W. Dunfee, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5396; email:
The Commission notes that rather than the initial estimate of 40 SEFs, there currently are 25 SEFs either registered with the Commission or with registration pending.
In addition to the above burden hours for compliance with part 43 obligations generally, the Commission determined that certain market participants would incur burden hours associated with the masking of the geographic detail of the underlying assets to a swap in the other commodity asset class, and with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade or large notional off-facility swap.
The Commission initially estimated that market participants would incur an aggregate of 2,167 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a block trade.
The Commission initially estimated that market participants would incur an aggregate of 2,255 annual burden hours in connection with the election to have a swap transaction treated as a large notional off-facility swap.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CNCS is proposing to renew an information collection.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed below by September 11, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom, Room 4200 at the mailing address above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Chad Stover, 202-606-6925, or by email at
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), in accordance to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information. This helps CNCS assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden (time and financial resources). It also helps the public understand CNCS' information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. CNCS is soliciting comments on the proposed renewal information collection request (ICR) that is described below. CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will become a matter of public record.
CNCS seeks renewal of the current information collection pursuant to the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4950
The revisions are intended to streamline the application process and ensure interested programs meet the appropriate programmatic and fiscal requirements to successfully execute disaster response activities. Additionally, the supporting forms will help CNCS identify and deploy programs more effectively and efficiently, matching the capabilities of the programs to the needs of the communities requesting assistance. The additional tools and forms under the DRCA will allow for effective information collection during a disaster event as well as assess the capacity of all DRCA programs throughout the year. Information will be collected electronically through completion of the forms and emailed to CNCS. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application.
CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on December 31, 2017.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 14, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
The collected information will be used by election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote, receive an absentee ballot or cast a write-in ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) is collected or retained by the Federal government.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), DOD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 11, 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 Threat Reduction Agency, Attn: NTPR, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6210, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201, or call (703)767-3175.
Veterans and their representatives routinely contact DTRA (by phone and mail) to request information regarding participation in U.S. atmospheric nuclear testing. A release form is required to certify the identity of the request and authorize the release of Privacy Act information (to the veteran or a 3rd party). DTRA is also required to collect irradiation scenario information from nuclear test participants to accurately determine their radiation dose assessment.
Marine Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps (MCJROTC), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 11, 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 Commanding General, Training and Education Command (C46JR), MCCDC, 1019 Elliott Road, Quantico, VA 22134-5001, or call Mr. Robert Davis at (703) 784-0478.
This form provides a written record of the overall performance of duty of MCJROTC instructors who are responsible for implementing the MCJROTC curriculum. The Individual MCJROTC Instructor Evaluation Summary is completed by principles to evaluate the effectiveness of individual MCJROTC instructors.
The form is further used as a performance related counseling tool and as a record of service performance to document performance and growth of individual MCJROTC instructors. Evaluating the performance of instructors is essential in ensuring that they provide quality training.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 11, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of the existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 14, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact the Applicant Products Team at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised and continuing collections of information. This helps ED assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand ED's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. ED is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper function of ED; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might ED enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might ED minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
The determination of need and eligibility are for the following Title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: The Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), an office of the U.S. Department of Education, subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive Title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the
ED and FSA seek OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845-0001. The specific application components, descriptions, and submission methods for each are listed in Table 1.
This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM) measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and, in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:
• The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;
• How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (
• How the applicant choose to submit any corrections and/or updates (
• The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);
• The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and
• The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.
The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2018-2019 is based upon two factors—estimating the growth rate
For 2018-2019, ED is reporting a net burden increase of 5,790,741 hours.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 11, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On July 5, 2017, North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District, 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 NTM Water Treatment Plant Hydro Project would have a combined installed capacity of 150 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along 24-inch diameter raw water pipeline. The project would be located near the Town of Golden in Jefferson 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 Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that on June 30, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2015), Nogales Transmission, L.L.C. (Nogales Transmission) and Nogales Frontier Operations, L.L.C. (Nogales Operations) filed a second supplement to its petition for declaratory order, filed on December 21, 2016, as more fully explained in its supplemented petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 14, 2017.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Walden Hydro, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on May 31, 2017, and provided public notice of its request on June 6, 2017. In a letter dated July 6, 2017, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Walden Hydro, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Walden Hydro, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Walden Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 4428. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by May 31, 2020.
p. Register online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that it took action to postpone the effective
Postponement date is June 29, 2017.
Thelma Murphy, Stormwater and Construction Permits Section OEP 06-4, Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; 617.918.1615; email address:
As stated in its postponement action, pursuant to section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 705), and for the reasons stated below, the EPA postponed the effective date of the EPA-issued General Permits for Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in Massachusetts (Massachusetts permit) from July 1, 2017 to July 1, 2018.
EPA Region 1 issued the Massachusetts permit on April 4, 2016, with an effective date of July 1, 2017. Region 1 issued the previous general permit for Small MS4s in Massachusetts in 2003, which expired and was administratively continued for MS4s covered under that permit in 2008. EPA Region 1 issued the 2016 Massachusetts permit following issuance of the Commonwealth's CWA section 401 certification by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). The final 2016 permits were jointly issued by EPA and MassDEP, along with EPA's 632-page Response to Comments document.
The Massachusetts Permit allows eligible small MS4s in Massachusetts to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Approximately 260 towns and other municipalities, which include a number of state and federally owned entities such as colleges, Veterans Administration hospitals, prisons and military bases in Massachusetts, are eligible to seek coverage under the permit.
Several parties filed petitions for review of the Massachusetts permit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Petitioners are the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR), Conservation Law Foundation/Charles River Watershed Association, National Association of Homebuilders, the City of Lowell, and the Town of Franklin. The D.C. Circuit has consolidated these petitions. See
On April 21, 2017, the D.C. Circuit granted CRR's motion to indefinitely stay the briefing deadlines. Under the original briefing schedule, petitioners would have filed their opening briefs on May 8, 2017. CRR cited several justifications in its motion to stay the original briefing deadlines, including providing time for the New Hampshire small MS4 general permit's judicial review period to end, providing time to address certain questions about the administrative record, and deadlines that the petitioners were facing in non-related litigation. EPA did not oppose this motion. Motions to govern further proceedings are due July 20, 2017.
On May 26, 2017, three of the petitioners (the Massachusetts Coalition of Water Resources, the City of Lowell, and the Town of Franklin, hereafter the “Requestors”) submitted a letter asking EPA Region 1 to postpone the July 1, 2017 effective date for one year pending judicial review under section 705 of the APA.
Upon consideration of the request, and for the reasons set forth below, EPA determined that justice requires postponement of the effective date.
The Requestors' May 26 letter asked EPA to postpone the July 1, 2017 effective date of the Massachusetts permit in the “interests of justice” because, the Requestors asserted, (1) the permit represents a significant expansion of EPA's CWA authority and the court must decide, among other things, whether EPA acted within its bounds by requiring that discharges meet water quality standards in addition to meeting the Maximum Extent Practicable (“MEP”) standard; (2) it will align the Massachusetts permit's effective date with the effective date of the virtually identical New Hampshire small MS4 general permit, which was issued in January 2017, raises the same legal issues, and has also been challenged in the D.C. Circuit (as well as the 1st Circuit); and (3) although irreparable harm is not required for EPA to postpone the effective date under APA section 705, without it the towns will suffer irreparable harm by immediately expending resources that may ultimately prove to be unnecessary and wasted to avoid non-compliance and risk of enforcement.
In postponing the effective date of the Massachusetts permit, EPA stated in its findings that justice requires postponing the July 1, 2017 effective date of the Massachusetts permit for one year pending judicial review. EPA would like to explore the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this case in order to engage with the various petitioners and jointly see if there might be a resolution that could avoid the need for litigation. EPA believes that it is fair to postpone the effective date of the permit so that eligible MS4s in Massachusetts that could seek coverage under the permit would not be subject to enforceable permit terms and conditions under the Massachusetts permit that could change as a result of ADR. Postponing the effective date for one year pending judicial review should give EPA ample time to determine what, if any, changes are appropriate in the permit and to determine next steps.
Pending any such decision by the Agency, postponing the effective date of the permit for one year will postpone certain obligations—and the associated costs—that would otherwise be incurred in the first year's implementation of the Massachusetts permit. Such costs would include monetary and staff time for preparation and submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by the permit. Also in the first year, in the absence of the postponement of the permit's
Moreover, postponing the effective date by one year will have the benefit of matching the Massachusetts permit's effective date with the effective date of the New Hampshire small MS4 general permit, which EPA Region 1 issued on January 18, 2017 and will take effect on July 1, 2018. Various parties have filed petitions for review of the New Hampshire permit in the D.C. Circuit, as well as one petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. EPA is also interested in exploring the use of ADR in that case. EPA has filed a motion with the First Circuit to transfer the petition that was filed there to the D.C. Circuit so that all of the New Hampshire petitions may be consolidated. Aligning the effective dates could promote efficiency in the resolution of both cases by facilitating the development of a unified ADR process that would address those issues raised in both permit appeals.
Based on the above, EPA concluded that justice requires postponement of the effective date. Thus EPA postponed the July 1, 2017 effective date of the Massachusetts permit for one year to July 1, 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Alaska has revised its approved State Public Water Supply Supervision Primacy Program. Alaska has adopted regulations analogous to the Environmental Protection Agency's Revised Total Coliform Rule. EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these State program revisions. By approving these rules, EPA does not intend to affect the rights of federally recognized Indian tribes within “Indian country,” nor does it intend to limit existing rights of the State of Alaska.
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by August 14, 2017 to the Acting Regional Administrator at the EPA address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Acting Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by August 14, 2017, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Acting Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on August 14, 2017. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Acting Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Drinking Water Program, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 and between the hours of 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and 1:00-4:00 p.m. at the EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Copies of the documents which explain the rule can also be obtained at EPA's Web site at:
Ricardi Duvil, Ph.D., EPA Region 10, Drinking Water Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, OWW-193, Seattle, Washington 98101, telephone (206) 553-2578, email at
Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving notice that it is amending the system of record for the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) Online learning management system. The SORN is being amended to change the system name from NETI Online to the NETI eLearning Center and to change the system location from the Office of Criminal Enforcement to NETI in the Office of Compliance (the NETI division). The NETI eLearning Center is used by Federal, State, Local, and Tribal environmental enforcement and compliance personnel for online distance learning. The NETI eLearning Center maintains registration information of internal and external users and records of training attendance and completion.
Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OE1-2015-0201, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Arthur Horowitz, Senior Program Analyst, EPA National Enforcement Training Institute, OECA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code 2235A, 202-564-2612, or by email at
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is giving notice that the NETI eLearning Center has replaced NETI Online, which was retired in January 2012, as the Learning Management System (LMS) for the Office of Compliance. The LMS is managed by the National Enforcement Training Institute in the Office of Compliance in OECA. The audience for the NETI eLearning Center is Federal, State, Local, and Tribal environmental enforcement and compliance personnel. The system maintains account registration information, which is password-protected. This account information includes the (1) email address; (2) first name; (3) last name; (4) name of organization (agency or company); (5) name of office or division; (6) state or territory; (7) type of organization represented; (8) employment status; and (9) primary media (
Access to the records in this system is limited to NETI employees whose official duties require using the information. Electronic data is maintained in an electronic data system, which maintains all system records. Access to the system is password protected and managed by NETI personnel. The EPA contracts with a private contractor that manages the data system on its own Fed Ramp secure servers. Users can access their own training information using their username and password. The NETI eLearning Center is contractor operated and appropriate Federal Acquisition and Regulations clauses are included in the contract. The system is operated and maintained by the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) in the Office of Compliance.
NETI eLearning Center: EPA-47
None.
All data is stored electronically in an Agency-approved electronic data system on Fed Ramp secure servers maintained by a private IT contractor to EPA. The server is located at a facility in San Jose, California.
Mike Walker, Director, National Enforcement Training Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460, MC 2235A.
Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. 4321.
To manage environmental enforcement related training data.
Federal, state, local, and tribal personnel with NETI eLearning Center accounts.
The system contains student registrations and transcripts, course descriptions, course lists, course enrollees, course catalogs, and other related records.
Individual enrollees.
General routine uses A, D, E, F, G, H, K and L apply to this system.
All data is stored electronically in an electronic data system on servers maintained by a private contractor to EPA.
Records stored in this system are subject to EPA's records schedule 571.
Files relating to course records are retrieved by individuals having a username and password. Users may access their course completion records.
Computer records are maintained in a secure, password-protected computer system.
Individuals seeking access to their own personal information in this system of record can access it using a username and individually selected password.
Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be changed and the corrective action sought and should submit a written request to the Privacy Act Officer.
Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records contains a record about themselves should submit a request to the Privacy Act Officer.
None.
66 FR 49947 (October, 2001)—OCEFT/NETI Training Registration and Administration Records. Establish a Privacy Act System of Records to manage environmental enforcement related training data.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, July 13, 2017 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, D.C.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of FMR Bulletin B-44, Federal warehousing and storage of assets.
GSA's OGP is providing guidance on Federal warehousing and the storage of assets through FMR Bulletin B-44. FMR Bulletin B-44 summarizes the industry-leading perspectives obtained through the development of international standards. This Bulletin provides an overview of considerations for agencies as they plan for acquiring warehousing space and throughout the life-cycle of the warehouse.
In addition to addressing the warehouse facility itself, the FMR Bulletin B-44 discusses the contents of the warehouse, with the idea that if the contents can be reduced, the need for warehousing facilities can also be reduced concomitantly. FMR Bulletin B-44 and all FMR Bulletin may be accessed at
Mr. Robert Holcombe, Director, Personal Property Policy Division, Office of Asset and Transportation, OGP, at 202-501-3828, or
The General Accountability Office (GAO) Report 15-41,
OMB Circular A-119,
GSA notes that these ASTM standards are protected by copyright, and cannot be shared with this Bulletin. This protection of intellectual property is addressed within Circular A-119 as a necessary part of developing such consensus standards. Each agency has a Standards Executive who can coordinate the provision of needed standards within the agency.
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
In accordance with the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf States Act (RESTORE Act or Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) announces the availability of the Draft 2017 Funded Priorities List: Comprehensive Commitment and Planning Support (draft CPS FPL). In the draft CPS FPL, the Council proposes to provide its members with funding to enhance collaboration, coordination, public engagement and use of best available science needed to make efficient use of
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments on the draft CPS FPL by 11:59 p.m. MT August 14, 2017.
Two informational webinars will be conducted:
• July 13, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. Central Time
• July 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time
You may register for these webinars in advance. Once registered, a link to access the webinar will be sent to the email address provided during registration.
You may submit comments on the draft CPS FPL by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In general, the Council will make such comments available for public inspection and copying on its Web site,
Please send questions by email to
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council's (Council) 2016 Comprehensive Plan commits to enhancing collaboration, coordination, public engagement and the use of best available science to support a holistic approach to Gulf of Mexico restoration. This approach reflects the interconnected nature of coastal and marine ecosystems and the importance of addressing system-wide stressors to improve ecosystem function. To that end, the Comprehensive Plan sets forth a vision to guide the Council's future actions:
The Council is proposing to provide limited funding over five years to its members to support the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan commitments and identify the future investments that maximize achievement of Gulf-wide restoration goals. The Council is also proposing to review the effectiveness of this funding at year four and consider whether extending planning and commitment support efforts beyond the five-year period is needed to continue to meet the Comprehensive Plan commitments.
The Council refers to this proposal as Comprehensive Plan Commitment and Planning Support (CPS). Pursuant to the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(D)(ii)(V)(bb)), in order to disburse Council-Selected Restoration Component funding to Council members, such funding must first be approved through a Funded Priorities List (FPL). Therefore, the CPS funding is being proposed as a draft 2017 FPL. This FPL development process enables the Council to solicit critical input from key stakeholders and the general public prior to making final decisions regarding CPS funding.
The fines and penalties arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill represent a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for large-scale restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. Restoration funding in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is administered through a variety of programs, each governed by different laws and/or procedures. These programs include the five Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act) (33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and note) components, Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's (NFWF) Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund (GEBF) and other funding sources.
A major challenge to Gulf-wide ecosystem restoration is coordinating efforts within each state, among Council members, among stakeholders within the Gulf region, and across funding streams. Adding to the challenge is the fact that no designated funding stream exists to support Council Member efforts to plan and coordinate restoration activities under the Council-Selected Restoration Component. Historically, Council members have had to rely upon general, tax-generated or appropriated funds to support their involvement in Council-Selected Restoration Component, including FPL development and the Comprehensive Plan update. The funds proposed to be approved in this draft FPL would provide Council members with funding from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement. By supporting collaboration and leveraging among these programs, the Council will be able to produce the greatest on-the-ground restoration results possible.
To effectively and efficiently address the commitments of the Comprehensive Plan, the Council proposes to provide funds necessary for members to:
• Strengthen ecosystem restoration proposals for future FPL(s) under the Council-Selected Restoration component of the RESTORE Act.
○ These funds will allow for the collaborative development of large-scale project and/or program submissions for potential funding through future FPL(s) to advance watershed/estuary-based efforts that were initiated in the Council's Initial FPL.
• Enhance the efficiency of future FPL development processes.
○ Investing in these CPS activities will provide for more thorough development of information on future FPL project/program proposals through the collaborative process.
○ Included in this information could be any necessary pre-submission consultations on best available science and environmental compliance.
○ Collectively, this information may result in potentially faster evaluation and funding of future FPLs.
• Facilitate long-term planning and leveraging efforts across funding streams.
○ Because funds from the
○ This strategy will include identifying opportunities to leverage across funding streams, as opposed to spending each annual payment on relatively small and possibly disconnected projects.
The Council believes that investing a relatively small amount of time and resources in planning can ensure that restoration projects selected for funding will yield greater ecosystem benefits in the future.
If approved, the Council intends to incentivize cost savings and efficiency in the CPS effort. Accordingly, if a member does not utilize its full allocation of CPS funding then, subject to Council approval in accordance with the RESTORE Act and all other applicable laws, the Council will take such savings into account when considering that member's proposals for future restoration funding opportunities. In other words, savings in the proposed CPS funds could be used to support specific restoration projects and programs sponsored by the Council member that achieves the savings.
The CPS funding will provide the necessary resources for Council members to stimulate and encourage the coordination and collaboration necessary to achieve the commitments of the Comprehensive Plan. By working closely within the Council, and among our restoration partners and the public, the Council believes it can make significant progress towards comprehensive Gulf restoration and provide substantial environmental and economic benefits to current and future generations. For example, the Council anticipates that the proposed CPS funds will be used to collaborate with the
• Evaluating the efficacy of using multiple funding streams to fund a single large-scale restoration and/or conservation project/program beyond what could be achieved through a single funding source.
• Developing project and program concepts that may be pursued for funding in future FPL(s), thereby potentially accelerating implementation of those selected for funding. Note that CPS funds may not be used to advance specific projects and programs beyond what is needed for submission for possible FPL approval.
• Harmonizing projects and programs within a defined geographic area, including a watershed/estuary system, that are temporally and spatially aligned with ecosystem function.
Activities supported by the proposed CPS funding would include the planning, coordination, collaboration, and pre-submission environmental compliance review
• Meet the requirements of the RESTORE Act Council-Selected Restoration Component;
• Meet the commitments of the Comprehensive Plan Update (see Appendix A); and
• Address associated planning needs for developing future FPLs.
Specifically, categories of activities proposed to be allowed under this CPS FPL would include:
• Planning and collaboration to develop submissions and/or conceptual, pre-submission options for the next FPL. Planning activities must be reasonable and directly related to the Council-Selected Restoration Component FPL development, and could include:
○ Planning and collaboration with other Council members for joint/coordinated proposal submissions;
○ Intra- and inter-state planning with multiple state and/or federal agencies and partners to develop proposals including those requiring multiple partner contributions (
○ Intra-member planning to develop proposals including those requiring multiple agency contributions (state and federal);
○ Technical meetings/focus groups (
○ Public engagement activities for the purposes of developing FPL submissions (
○ Process-related activities to support development of project/program options (
○ Project scoping, pre-submission environmental compliance review/coordination and engagement, and technical assistance for potential future FPL projects (including Council workgroups); and
○ Collaboration and coordination among Council, NRDA, NFWF, as well as entities identified in the RESTORE Act with roles in the Spill Impact Component to support development of restoration priorities and/or development of jointly funded/implemented projects and programs.
• Staffing in support of planning, collaboration, pre-submission environmental compliance coordination, and meeting other commitments from the Comprehensive Plan;
• Preparation of proposals in accordance with FPL submission guidelines, including entry of proposals into the Council's Restoration Assistance and Award Management System (RAAMS);
• Evaluation activities to determine the impact of the Council's projects/programs and inform adaptive management for future funding decisions. Activities should complement work undertaken through the Council Monitoring and Assessment Program, and could include:
○ Near-term design of an evaluation structure and process,
○ Periodic evaluations of overall Bucket 2 project/program impact at multiple scales, and
○ Development of recommendations for adaptive management.
• Financial support for outreach mechanisms (printing, Web site maintenance, and other similar activities);
• Travel expenses that are reasonable and directly related to the Council-Selected Restoration Component projects/programs development, including:
○ Steering Committee/Council meetings;
○ Meetings with individual Council member agencies and other potential partners to develop project concepts;
○ Meetings to support project/program planning and collaboration;
○ Participation in Council workgroups and FPL project-specific workgroups and committees;
○ Participation in training, conferences, and workshops to facilitate general collaboration among restoration practitioners and scientists and maximize use of existing expertise; and
○ Site visits to support development of reasonably viable projects/program submissions for potential FPL funding.
• Preparation and execution of Interagency Agreements, grants, and other related items required by the Council prior to implementing the scope of work covered by project-specific interagency project-specific activities. These CPS funds would not be able to be used to conduct post-award, project-specific activities. Those costs would be borne by the project itself.
• The allowable uses of CPS funding would
With these funds, Council members would have the necessary resources to enable stronger support of collaboration activities, including:
• Collaborating on various scales, including:
○ Watershed-scale to sequence projects in alignment with ecosystem function, including evaluation of applicability of various
○ A state-scale and/or landscape-scale geographic area; and
○ Region-wide-scale for restoration planning focused on a specific resource (
• Providing opportunities to facilitate the formation of strategic partnerships and collaboration on innovative ecosystem restoration projects, programs, and approaches, including:
○ Public engagement opportunities that reflect the richness and diversity of Gulf Coast communities to ensure ongoing public participation in the Council's restoration efforts;
○ Focused resource and/or geographic-specific discussions with stakeholders and technical experts; and
○ Advancing the ability to achieve, assess, and report on watershed or regional outcomes (
Council members utilizing CPS funds under this FPL will provide information on the progress of their respective efforts. The primary focus of reporting is to encourage further collaboration and share best practices/lessons learned. To that end, the following reporting elements of the CPS funding awards would include:
• Semi-Annual Financial and Expenditure written reports, and annual progress summaries, submitted through the Council's RAAMS in adherence to federal financial assistance requirements (2 CFR part 200). The annual progress summaries should include, as appropriate:
○ Collaboration activities and partners,
○ Stakeholders and public engagement workshops/meetings held,
○ FPL-related Planning,
○ Lessons learned, and
○ Potential project/program concepts, which may include such details as:
Watershed, estuary or other geographic areas; and
Council Goal(s) and Objective(s) addressed
• Work with Council Staff to populate and regularly update project/program concepts information in the internal online project/program mapping tool. The purpose is to facilitate pre-submission collaboration between members who may have preliminary interests in similar projects or programs.
CPS activities will also be periodically discussed in Steering Committee meetings to foster additional collaboration and share lessons learned. During these meetings, Council members are encouraged to highlight progress and accomplishments related to this work.
The Council proposes to allow each of the 11 Council members to apply for up to $500,000 per year for up to 3 years and up to $300,000 per year for 2 years thereafter, resulting in a total of up to $23.1 million, or 1.44% of the total funds available (not including interest) in the Council-Selected Restoration Component supporting these activities, as detailed in Table 1 (below).
The Council also proposes to review the effectiveness of this funding at year four and consider the need to continue the CPS beyond the five-year period. Based upon this evaluation, the Council will determine whether there is a need to undertake follow-on awards to continue this work. The timing of this review during year four is intended to avoid a lapse in funding. If the need for CPS funding extends beyond 5 years, future awards would use the same FPL amendment process requiring public notice and a formal Council vote.
The Council has a key role in helping to ensure that the Gulf's natural resources are sustainable and available for future generations. The Gulf restoration funds available now and in the future, represent an incredible opportunity and responsibility for the Council and all the stakeholders in the Gulf Coast region.
In the coming months and years, the Council will focus its efforts on collaboration—among and between members and with other restoration partners—to fully leverage available funds. Through such focused collaboration, the Council can facilitate holistic, large-scale, and coordinated restoration. The CPS funding proposed
The statutory program authority for the draft FPL is found at 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2).
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by August 14, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ is extending the comment period for this this proposed information collection on the development of a registry of patient registries. Patient registries have received significant attention and funding in recent years. Similar to controlled studies, patient registries represent some burden to patients (
By providing a centralized point of collection for information about all patient registries in the United States, the Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR) enhances patient registry information, extracted from
The RoPR database system aims to achieve the following objectives:
(1) Provide a searchable database of patient registries in the United States (to promote collaboration, reduce redundancy, and improve transparency);
(2) Facilitate the use of common data fields and definitions in similar health conditions (to improve opportunities for sharing, comparing, and linkage);
(3) Provide a public repository of searchable summary results (including results from registries that have not yet been published in the peer-reviewed literature);
(4) Offer a search tool to locate existing data that researchers can request for use in new studies; and
(5) Serve as a recruitment tool for researchers and patients interested in participating in patient registries.
To achieve the objectives of this project, the following data collections will be implemented:
(1) Collect information on registries from users who populate the RoPR database system.
AHRQ is proposing to add a self-registration option to the RoPR database so that registry owners do not need a National Library of Medicine Protocol Registration System (PRS) account to contribute. The current OMB-approved RoPR system requires users to have a PRS account. In the current data entry process, registry owners enter most of the registry information using the
The new self-registration pathway is being developed by AHRQ through its contractor, L&M Policy Research and subcontractor Truven Health Analytics, an IBM Company, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (8).
AHRQ, in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is also proposing to add three fields to the self-registration pathway related to the CMS initiative to create a Centralized Repository for Public Health Agencies and Clinical Data Registry Reporting. The purpose of the repository is to assist eligible professionals, eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals in finding entities that accept electronic public health data. By adding these fields to the existing RoPR database, AHRQ will further the goal of creating a central place where stakeholders can find all pertinent information on registries.
The purpose and the use of the RoPR is to provide a readily available public resource strictly for patient registries, following the model of
The RoPR is an ongoing data collection initiative.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the RoPR. In 2016, 65 respondents manually entered a new RoPR record. It is expected that more than 75% of patient registries are research-focused and will continue to use the original
Each respondent would to need enter his or her new RoPR record only once. The RoPR system sends an automated reminder to any registry owner who has not updated his or her RoPR record in the past year. In 2016, 132 RoPR entries were updated and released. Using the same logic as above, it is estimated that an additional 33 entries (25% of 132) might be updated annually once the self-registration pathway is available.
In January 2017, Truven Health Analytics used a sample of existing
As a result of the knowledge gained during these processes, it is estimated that it will take users 10 minutes, on average, to manually enter the additional fields added through the self-registration process. Adding this time to the estimated burden of completing the original RoPR fields (45 minutes), it is estimated that it will take users 55 minutes to complete all fields through the self-registration pathway.
It is estimated that it will take users 5 minutes to review and update the fields added through the self-registration pathway. Adding this time to the estimated burden of reviewing and updating the original RoPR fields (15 minutes), it is estimated that it will take 20 minutes for a person to review and make updates to an existing RoPR record created through the self-registration pathway.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated cost burden associated with the respondent's time to participate in the RoPR. The total cost burden to respondents is estimated at an average of $4,017.51 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of
Submission Deadline on or before August 14, 2017.
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please
Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
What are currently available shared decision-making tools for patient and provider use for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation, and what are their relative strengths and weaknesses?
Patients who have known reversible causes of AF (including but not limited to postoperative, hyperthyroidism).
All subjects are <18 years of age, or some subjects are under <18 years of age but results are not broken down by age.
KQ 1: Clinical and imaging tools and associated risk factors for assessment/evaluation of thromboembolic risk:
KQ 2: Clinical tools and individual risk factors for assessment/evaluation of intracranial hemorrhage bleeding risk:
KQ 3: Anticoagulation, antiplatelet, and procedural interventions:
None.
KQ 1: Other clinical or imaging tools listed for assessing thromboembolic risk.
KQ 2: Other clinical tools listed for assessing bleeding risk.
KQ 3: Other anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedural interventions for preventing thromboembolic events.
For KQ 3, studies that did not include an active comparator.
Patient-centered outcomes for KQ3 (and for KQ1 [thromboembolic outcomes] and KQ2 [bleeding outcomes] under “Patient outcome efficacy”):
Study does not include any outcomes of interest.
Timing of follow-up not limited.
None.
Inpatient and outpatient.
None.
Not a clinical study (
Abstract-only or poster publications; articles that have been retracted or withdrawn.
Because studies with fewer than 20 subjects are often pilot studies or studies of lower quality, we will exclude them from our review.
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or methods articles (used for background and component references only).
Non-English-language publications.
Relevant systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or methods articles (will be used for background only).
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on June 15, 2017.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from the Catholic Health Initiatives Patient Safety Organization, LLC, a component entity of the Catholic Health Initiatives, PSO number P0162, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Catholic Health Initiatives Patient Safety Organization, LLC was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on June 15, 2017.
The Catholic Health Initiatives Patient Safety Organization, LLC has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of charter amendment.
The Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (ACTPCMD) has been amended. The effective date of the renewed charter is May 31, 2017.
Kennita R. Carter, M.D., Designated Federal Official, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Kennita R. Carter, M.D., Designated Federal Official, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 15N-116, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call 301-945-3505; or (3) send an email to
The Committee provides advice and recommendations on policy and program development to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) concerning the medicine and dentistry activities under section 747 of the Public Health Services (PHS) Act, as it existed upon the enactment of Section 749 of the PHS Act in 1998. The Committee is responsible for preparing and submitting an annual report to the Secretary and Congress describing the activities of the Committee, including findings and recommendations made by the Committee.
Amendment of the ACTPCMD charter clarifies the authorization and duties of the Committee regarding medicine and dentistry as it operates and conducts its business.
A copy of the ACTPCMD charter is available on the ACTPCMD Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women scheduled for August 21-22, 2017, in Conference Room 6, C-Wing, 31, which was published in the
In addition to filing written comments, oral comments from the public will be scheduled for approximately 10:45 a.m.-11:30 a.m. on August 22, 2017. Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee on August 22, 2017, must notify the Contact Person by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 7, 2017. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations must submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to three to five minutes per speaker depending on the number of speakers to be accommodated within the allotted time. Speakers will be assigned a time to speak in the order of the date and time when their request to speak is received. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record.
Any changes to the meeting agenda, including tentative times, as well as other relevant additional information about the meeting will be posted on the Web site for the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) located at:
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee working group will meet via teleconference to work on Task Statement 25, review of the draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual, to complete the discussions from its April 4-5, and May 8, 2017 meetings. The teleconference will be open to the public.
The Merchant Marine Mariner Medical Advisory Committee working group is scheduled to meet via teleconference on Thursday, August 17, 2017, from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please note that this
To join the teleconference, contact the individual listed in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by section 210 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, codified at 46 United States Code 7115). The committee advises the Secretary on matters related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.
The agenda for the August 17, 2017, working group teleconference is as follows:
(1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement 25 (All task statements can be found at
(2) Reports of working sub-groups. The working sub-groups will report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will not take action on these reports at this time. Any action taken as a result of this working group meeting will be taken after the public comment period.
(3) Public comment period.
(4) Preparation of the meeting report to the full Committee.
(5) Adjournment of meeting.
Please note that the teleconference may adjourn early if the work is completed.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423. 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. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Danner.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before August 14, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone (703) 358-2023; facsimile (703) 358-2280.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import specimens of two male and one female captive-bred resplendent quetzal (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for African lion (
The applicant requests an amendment of an existing captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for bontebok (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for Asian elephant (
The applicant requests a permit to import two captive-born female Komodo monitors (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for red-collared lemur (
The applicant requests a renewal of a permit to export and reimport nonliving museum specimens of endangered and threatened species that were previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
Endangered Species Act of 1973, (16 U.S.C. 1531
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada, provided for in subheadings 4407.10.01, 4409.10.05, 4409.10.10, 4409.10.20, 4409.10.90, 4418.90.10. Subject merchandise may also be classified in subheadings 4415.20.40, 4415.20.80, 4418.99.90, 4421.91.70, and 4421.91.97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value.
Effective June 30, 2017.
Fred Ruggles (202-205-3187,
Coniferous wood, sawn, or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or not finger-jointed, of an actual thickness exceeding six millimeters.
Coniferous wood siding, flooring, and other coniferous wood (other than moldings and dowel rods), including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, that is continuously shaped (including, but not limited to, tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded) along any of its edges, ends, or faces, whether or not planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or not end-jointed.
Coniferous drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber.
Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and fastened together with nails, whether or not with plywood sheathing.
Components or parts of semi-finished or unassembled finished products made from subject merchandise that would otherwise meet the definition of the scope above.
Softwood lumber product imports are generally entered under Chapter 44 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This chapter of the HTSUS covers “Wood and articles of wood.” Softwood lumber products that are subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under the following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in Chapter 44: 4407.10.01.01; 4407.10.01.02; 4407.10.01.15; 4407.10.01.16; 4407.10.01.17; 4407.10.01.18; 4407.10.01.19; 4407.10.01.20; 4407.10.01.42; 4407.10.01.43; 4407.10.01.44; 4407.10.01.45; 4407.10.01.46; 4407.10.01.47; 4407.10.01.48; 4407.10.01.49; 4407.10.01.52; 4407.10.01.53; 4407.10.01.54; 4407.10.01.55; 4407.10.01.56; 4407.10.01.57; 4407.10.01.58; 4407.10.01.59; 4407.10.01.64; 4407.10.01.65; 4407.10.01.66; 4407.10.01.67; 4407.10.01.68; 4407.10.01.69; 4407.10.01.74; 4407.10.01.75; 4407.10.01.76; 4407.10.01.77; 4407.10.01.82; 4407.10.01.83; 4407.10.01.92; 4407.10.01.93; 4409.10.05.00; 4409.10.10.20; 4409.10.10.40; 4409.10.10.60; 4409.10.10.80; 4409.10.20.00; 4409.10.90.20; 4409.10.90.40; and 4418.99.10.00.
Subject merchandise as described above might be identified on entry documentation as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame components, fence pickets, truss components, pallet components, flooring, and door and window frame parts. Items so identified might be entered under the following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in Chapter 44: 4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00; 4418.99.90.05; 4418.99.90.20; 4418.99.90.40; 4418.99.90.95; 4421.91.70.40; and 4421.91.97.80.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
The scope of the order excludes the following items: U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for processing and imported into the United States is excluded from the scope of the investigations if the processing occurring in Canada is limited to one or more of the following: (1) Kiln drying; (2) planing to create smooth-to-size board; or (3) sanding. Box-spring frame kits are excluded if they contain the following wooden pieces—two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails must be radius-cut at both ends. The kits must be individually packaged and must contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length. Radius-cut box-spring-frame components, not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length, ready for assembly without further processing are excluded. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantially cut so as to completely round one corner.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the 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 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Bioverativ Inc.; Bioverativ Therapeutics Inc.; and Bioverativ U.S. LLC on July 7, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain recombinant factor IX products. The complaint names as respondents CSL Behring LLC of King of Prussia, PA; CSL Behring GmbH of Germany; and CSL Behring Recombinant Facility AG of Switzerland. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3236”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 14, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Helen Koppe, Program Manager, ATF Firearms & Explosives Industry Division either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, or by email at
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)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
National Institute of Justice, Justice.
Notice.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) announces publication of
NIJ has been working with conformity assessment bodies to develop acceptable criteria by which NIJ would recognize a product certification scheme operated by a certification body in the private sector. Certification better ensures that quality restraints are available to criminal justice practitioners. In the interest of officer safety and public safety, NIJ anticipates recognizing certification programs in the private sector that meet or exceed the minimum scheme requirements. Certification bodies that are interested in developing a product certification scheme for restraints described in NIJ Standard 1001.00 should contact NIJ at the contact information listed below. As previously noted (
Mark Greene, Policy and Standards Division Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Institute of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; telephone number: (202) 307-3384; email address:
The following describes the minimum requirements that a product certification scheme must contain for the certification of restraints described in NIJ Standard 1001.00,
The following is intended primarily for those considering becoming certification scheme owners for the purpose of certifying restraints, in order to provide greater confidence to the criminal justice end user community that the restraints products conform to the requirements specified in NIJ Standard 1001.00. It includes minimum reasonable expectations that a certification body should meet in order to operate a certification program for restraints. The following is also intended for accreditation bodies that accredit certification bodies which may be considering certifying restraints to a scheme that includes laboratory testing of products to NIJ Standard 1001.00.
A draft version of the following was published for public comment for 30 days in the
The following terms are used in accordance with international standards:
Nothing in the following is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States. Moreover, nothing in this document creates any obligation for conformity assessment bodies to follow or adopt this voluntary standard, nor does it create any obligation for manufacturers, suppliers, law enforcement agencies, or others to follow or adopt voluntary NIJ equipment standards.
1.1 This document describes the minimum requirements that a product certification scheme must contain for the certification of restraints described in NIJ Standard 1001.00,
1.2 This document includes provisions for NIJ to file urgent complaints with a certification body regarding products it certifies to protect criminal justice end users of restraints products, such as police officers and correctional officers, if NIJ believes that a hazardous condition exists.
1.3 This document includes provisions for NIJ to file urgent complaints with an accreditation body regarding conformity assessment bodies it accredits in the certification scheme to protect criminal justice end users of restraints products, such as police officers and correctional officers, if NIJ believes that a hazardous condition exists.
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO/IEC 17000, ISO/IEC 17065, ISO/IEC 17067, and NIJ 1001.00 apply.
4.1 The product certification scheme shall follow the guidelines in ISO/IEC 17067.
4.1.1 The product certification scheme shall be of scheme type 5 as described in 5.3.7 in ISO/IEC 17067.
4.1.2 The scheme shall include provisions for the certification body to ensure that the client maintains an appropriate quality management system (
4.1.3 The certification body shall issue a mark of conformity to be displayed on certified products in accordance with ISO/IEC 17030.
4.2 Conformity assessment bodies shall be accredited.
4.2.1 Certification bodies shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17065 by an accreditation body that is a signatory to the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA).
4.2.2 Certification bodies shall have a scope of accreditation to include NIJ 1001.00.
4.2.3 Testing laboratories shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by an accreditation body that is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
4.2.4 Testing laboratories shall have a scope of accreditation that includes NIJ 1001.00 and all test methods referenced therein.
4.2.5 The certification body can take the qualification, assessing, and monitoring performed by other organizations (
4.3 NIJ may request information from the certification body.
4.3.1 NIJ may request in writing directly from the certification body a list of all actions taken against specified current or previously certified products, such as termination, reduction, suspension, or withdrawal of certification.
4.3.2 If requested to do so, the certification body shall provide in writing the information requested by NIJ in 4.3.1 within five (5) working days.
4.4 NIJ may bring urgent complaints to the certification body.
4.4.1 NIJ may bring urgent complaints regarding certified products, or products believed to be certified, directly to the certification body if NIJ believes that a hazardous condition exists.
4.4.2 Should NIJ bring an urgent complaint to the attention of the certification body, NIJ shall articulate the complaint in writing.
4.4.3 The certification body shall provide an expedited response in writing to NIJ within five (5) working days, articulating how it plans to proceed with the urgent complaint, including actions it may take to determine the validity of the complaint and an estimated timeline to determine the validity of the complaint.
4.5 NIJ may request information from accreditation bodies.
4.5.1 NIJ may request in writing directly from an accreditation body a list of all actions taken against a conformity assessment body that it accredits in the certification scheme, such as termination, reduction, suspension, or withdrawal of certification.
4.5.2 If requested to do so, the accreditation body shall provide in writing the information NIJ requested in 4.5.1 within five (5) working days.
4.6 NIJ may bring urgent complaints to accreditation bodies.
4.6.1 NIJ may bring urgent complaints directly to an accreditation body regarding conformity assessment bodies that it accredits in the certification scheme if NIJ believes a hazardous condition exists.
4.6.2 Should NIJ bring an urgent complaint to the attention of an accreditation body, NIJ shall articulate the complaint in writing.
4.6.3 The accreditation body shall provide an expedited response in writing to NIJ within five (5) working days, articulating how it plans to proceed with the urgent complaint, including actions it may take to determine the validity of the complaint and an estimated timeline to determine the validity of the complaint.
4.7 Accreditation bodies shall notify NIJ of any changes in the accreditation status or scope of accreditation of any conformity assessment bodies in the certification scheme.
4.7.1 Changes in accreditation status include suspension, withdrawal, or reduction of the scope of accreditation.
4.7.2 The accreditation body shall notify NIJ in writing within five (5) working days after such action is taken.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Task Force reports to the NAC.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 2:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., EDT.
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20456.
Dr. Beverly Girten, Executive Secretary, NAC Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, 202-358-0212, or
This is a virtual meeting and will be open to the public telephonically and by WebEx only. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll free access number 1-844-467-6272 or toll access number 1-720-259-6462, and then the numeric participant passcode: 634012 followed by the # sign. To join via WebEx on July 19, 2017, the link is
This virtual meeting is taking place with less than 15 calendar days' notice due to administrative scheduling issues. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5
Open meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Science Board, to be held Monday, July 17, 2017, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
Open.
Executive Committee Chair's opening remarks; approval of Executive Committee minutes, and discussion of issues and topics for the agendas of the NSB meetings scheduled for August 15-16, 2017.
Point of contact for this meeting is: James Hamos, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8000.
You may find meeting information and updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at
An audio link will be available for the public. Members of the public must contact the Board Office to request the public audio link by sending an email to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application, dated February 27, 2017 (and supplemented on April 25, 2017), from Lost Creek ISR, LLC (Lost Creek) to amend its Source and Byproduct Materials License (SUA-1598) for the Lost Creek Facility in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The amendment would authorize recovery of uranium by In Situ Recovery (ISR) extraction techniques at the Lost Creek East Expansion Area, which is adjacent to the existing approved facility, and at the next deeper horizon at both the existing and proposed expansion area. The amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI).
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 11, 2017. Any potential party, as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0391 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:
•
•
•
John Saxton, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0697; email:
The NRC received, by letter dated February 27, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17069A296), and supplemented on April 25, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17115A215), an application to amend Lost Creek's Source and Byproduct Materials License SUA-11598 for the Lost Creek Facility located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The proposed amendment would authorize the recovery of uranium by ISR extraction techniques at the Lost Creek East Expansion Area and at deeper subsurface horizon (the KM Horizon) with both the existing facility and proposed expansion area. This application contains SUNSI.
An NRC administrative completeness review found the application acceptable for technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML17115A400). Prior to approving the amendment application, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report prepared by the NRC. The NRC will participate in the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and the BLM dated February 12, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13072A778). The NRC will review the BLM's EIS for adoption to fulfil the NRC's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The BLM and the NRC agreed that the BLM would be the designated lead agency in preparation of this EIS by letter dated December 14, 2104 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14303A508). The BLM's notice of intent to prepare the EIS was noticed in the
In addition to the structural expansion, the amendment application also includes a request to increase the maximum permitted annual production of yellowcake from 2.0 to 2.2 million pounds.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by September 11, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Maria W. Votsch, 202-268-6525.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On November 17, 2016, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange has proposed to offer a new ELO attribute, which would allow certain displayed retail orders to receive higher priority on the Nasdaq book than other orders at the same price (“Extended Life Priority”), and to make conforming changes to its rules. As discussed in more detail below, the Exchange has proposed to amend Rule 4703 to set forth the ELO attribute in new subparagraph (m), add an attachment B to its designated retail order attestation form that sets forth an attestation that would be required of members in connection with utilizing the ELO attribute, and make related changes to Rules 4702(b), 4752, 4753, 4754, and 4757.
Proposed Rule 4703(m) states that ELO is an order attribute that allows an order to receive priority in the Nasdaq book above other orders resting on the Nasdaq book at the same price that are
As proposed, at least 99% of the Designated Retail Orders with the ELO attribute entered by the member must exist unaltered on the Nasdaq book for a minimum of one second for an Exchange member to be eligible to use the ELO attribute.
For purposes of determining compliance with the 99% threshold, the Exchange would measure the number of orders with the ELO attribute that rested for one second or longer and divide that value by the number of orders that the member marked with the ELO attribute.
As noted above, only displayed Designated Retail Orders would be eligible for the ELO attribute, and if a Designated Retail Order with a non-display attribute also is entered with the ELO attribute, the order would be added to the Nasdaq book as a non-displayed order without Extended Life Priority.
As proposed, an order designated with the ELO attribute would only have Extended Life Priority if it is ranked at its displayed price. Specifically, proposed Rule 4703(m) would provide that an ELO order that is adjusted by the Exchange system upon entry to be displayed on the Nasdaq book at one price but ranked on the book at a different, non-displayed price would be ranked without the ELO attribute at the non-displayed price. If the Nasdaq system subsequently adjusts such an order to be displayed and ranked on the Nasdaq book at the same price, the order would be assigned Extended Life Priority and ranked on the book in time priority among other orders with Extended Life Priority at that price.
Additionally, proposed Rule 4703(m) would provide that, for purposes of the Nasdaq opening, closing, and halt crosses, all ELO orders on the Nasdaq book upon initiation of a cross may participate in such a cross and retain priority among orders posted on the Nasdaq book that also participate in the
The Exchange stated that it would carefully monitor members' use of the ELO attribute on a monthly basis and would not rely solely on a member's attestation with regard to ELO usage.
The Exchange has proposed to designate orders with the ELO attribute with a new, unique identifier.
In connection with the proposed addition of Rule 4703(m), the Exchange has proposed to make conforming changes to Rules 4702(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(C), and (b)(4)(C) to indicate that the ELO attribute may be assigned to price to comply, price to display, and post-only orders, respectively. In addition, the Exchange has proposed to amend Rules 4752 (Opening Process), 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross), and 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to incorporate ELO orders into the cross execution priority hierarchies set forth in each of those rules.
The Exchange has stated that it plans to implement the ELO functionality for Designated Retail Orders in a measured manner.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed ELO functionality should benefit retail investors by providing enhanced order book priority to retail order flow that is not marketable upon entry. Such enhanced order book priority could result in additional or more immediate execution opportunities on the Exchange for resting retail orders that otherwise would be farther down in the order book queue, and thereby enhance execution opportunities for retail investors.
As noted above, the Commission received eleven comment letters on the proposed rule change,
Four commenters expressed concern that the Exchange's proposal would be unfairly discriminatory by providing the ELO functionality only to retail orders.
Four commenters also expressed concern that the proposal would increase equity market structure complexity, create uncertainty regarding the priority of resting orders, and negatively impact market liquidity and price discovery.
In response, the Exchange stated its belief that the growth in internalization and the speed of execution has required differentiation of retail orders, which are typically entered by long-term investors, from those of other market participants.
The Commission recognizes that market participants generally distinguish individual retail investors from professional traders, and that retail investors are presumed to be less informed than professional traders. Recognizing this distinction, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to provide the ELO functionality only to Designated Retail Orders is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal represents a reasonable effort to enhance the ability of retail trading interest to participate effectively on an exchange without discriminating unfairly against other
The Commission also does not share the concern expressed by some commenters that the proposed ELO functionality would have a detrimental market impact, such as by causing wider spreads. The Commission believes that the proposal could lead to increased or more immediate execution opportunities on the Exchange for resting retail orders. Moreover, given that the ELO attribute would only be available for Designated Retail Orders that are displayed, to the extent that Exchange members send more retail interest to the Exchange due to the availability of the ELO functionality, this could translate into more displayed retail interest on the Exchange. If the ELO functionality contributes to greater displayed liquidity on the Exchange, this may benefit all market participants by improving the price discovery process. In addition, due to the greater likelihood that retail orders would have priority at the prevailing inside market as a result of the ELO functionality, the proposal may in fact encourage tighter spreads and price formation because non-retail liquidity providers may need to quote more aggressively than the prevailing market in order to gain priority.
With regard to the Exchange's proposed eligibility requirements for the ELO attribute, four commenters expressed concern that the Exchange's initial proposal to monitor for compliance with the ELO eligibility requirements on a quarterly basis would be insufficient to appropriately surveil for misuse of the functionality.
In addition, three commenters argued that, under the proposed attestation requirement, a participant could game the 99% threshold by improperly inflating its number of compliant ELO orders, such as by submitting a large number of non-marketable ELO Orders, while impermissibly benefiting from its non-compliant 1% of ELO Orders.
In response, the Exchange amended its proposal to add additional detail regarding the ELO functionality, including how the proposed one-second timer would operate and how the 99% threshold would be calculated, as well as to shorten the review period for determining compliance with the eligibility requirements from a quarterly review to a monthly review period.
In addition, the Exchange stated that the definition of Designated Retail Order is clear that the member entering such an order must have policies and procedures designed to ensure that the order complies with the requirements of the definition, including that the order originate from a natural person.
One commenter asserted that the increased frequency of monitoring proposed in Amendment No. 1 did not address its concerns with the Exchange's proposed monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
In reply, the Exchange noted that its proposed rules are properly designed to maintain compliance and that it would actively enforce the proposed rules to achieve compliance.
The Commission believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to ensure that the eligibility criteria for ELO usage are followed appropriately and to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. In this regard, the Commission believes that the measures the Exchange has represented that it would take in order to address member non-compliance with the ELO eligibility criteria, and to surveil for, investigate, and punish misuse or gaming of the ELO functionality, are sufficient to encourage members to take all reasonable steps necessary to comply with the ELO eligibility criteria and provide sufficient deterrence to members who otherwise would abuse the functionality. In particular, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it will carefully monitor its members' use of the ELO attribute on a monthly basis and not rely solely on a member's attestation with regard to ELO usage.
With regard to the identification of ELO orders in Nasdaq's TotalView ITCH market data feed, four commenters expressed concern that the proposed ELO order identifier would reveal to market participants that certain orders are retail orders and must remain unaltered for at least one second.
The Exchange stated that it does not believe that information leakage is a concern with respect to the current proposal because the ELO functionality would be available only to retail orders, and retail investor interest is most often represented by one order at a single price.
One commenter disagreed with the Exchange's argument that information leakage would not be a concern with respect to retail orders.
In reply, the Exchange asserted that the proposal would create transparency, not information leakage.
In addition, the Exchange did not share the concern that the identification of ELO orders on the Exchange's data feed could affect routing strategies and lead to lower fill rates for ELO orders. According to the Exchange, most members utilize transaction cost analytic tools to evaluate and measure the related impact of an execution by weighing opportunity cost and market impact.
The Exchange also stated that the identification of ELO orders would not allow market participants to say with any assurance that all other orders are of a particular participant type because not all retail orders will be designated as ELO.
The Commission believes that market participants (retail and non-retail) are not likely to be detrimentally affected by other market participants' knowledge, via the ELO identifier, that certain orders originated from retail investors and must remain unchanged for at least one second. In particular, information leakage would likely not be a concern for retail interest because retail interest is most often represented by one order at a single price.
Finally, one commenter suggested that the proposal could create a conflict with FINRA Rule 5320, commonly known as the Manning rule.
In response, the Exchange stated that the Manning obligations of a member using the ELO functionality would be no different from the obligations on an OTC market maker that internalizes orders and relies on the “no-knowledge” exception to separate its proprietary trading from its handling of customer orders.
In response to the Exchange, the commenter disputed the Exchange's assertion that the “no knowledge” exception to the Manning rule should address its concern, noting that it would persist where a firm may choose not to use the “no-knowledge” exception in order to provide higher fill rates or price improvement opportunities to its customers.
The Commission does not believe that the commenter's assertion that broker-dealers could be conflicted in their ability to utilize the ELO functionality and also comply with their obligations under FINRA Rule 5320 is a basis for finding that the Exchange's proposal is inconsistent with the Act. As the Exchange noted, the “no-knowledge” exception to FINRA Rule 5320 could be applicable to an Exchange member using the ELO functionality.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to mend its rules to extend the pilot program that eliminated position and exercise limits for physically-settled options on the SPDR S&P ETF Trust (“SPY”) (“SPY Pilot 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
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01 to ISE Rule 412 and Supplementary Material .01 to ISE Rule 414 to extend the duration of the SPY Pilot Program through July 12, 2018. This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security, (2) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index, (3) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding margin, and (4) financial requirements imposed by ISE and the Commission.
With this proposal, the Exchange submits the SPY report to the Commission, which report reflects, during the time period from May 2016 through May 2017, the trading of standardized SPY options with no position limits consistent with option exchange provisions.
The Exchange represents that, should the Exchange propose to extend the pilot program, adopt on a permanent basis the pilot program or terminate the pilot program, it will submit a new pilot report at least thirty (30) days before the end of the extended SPY Pilot Program, which will cover the extended pilot period. The Pilot Report will detail the size and different types of strategies employed with respect to positions established as a result of the elimination of position limits in SPY. In addition, the Pilot Report will note whether any problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any other information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the SPY Pilot Program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration. In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make available to Commission staff data elements relating to the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program.
Conditional on the findings in the SPY Pilot Report, the Exchange will file with the Commission a proposal to extend the pilot program, adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate the pilot. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by the expiration of the Extended Pilot, the position limits for SPY options would revert to limits in effect prior to the commencement of the SPY Pilot Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would be beneficial to market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to similar filings that the Exchange expects to be filed by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform position limits for a multiply listed options class.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend for another twelve (12) month time period the pilot program to eliminate position limits for options on the SPDR® S&P 500® exchange-traded fund (“SPY ETF” or “SPY”),
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 the Supplementary Material at the end of Chapter III, Section 7 (Position Limits), to extend the current pilot which expires on July 12, 2017 for an additional twelve (12) month time period to July 12, 2018 (“Extended Pilot”). This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits; (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index; (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements
With this proposal, the Exchange submits the SPY report to the Commission, which report reflects, during the time period from May 2016 through May 2017, the trading of standardized SPY options with no position limits consistent with option exchange provisions.
As with the original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange represents that a SPY Pilot Report will be submitted at least thirty (30) days before the end of the Extended Pilot and would analyze that period. The Pilot Report will detail the size and different types of strategies employed with respect to positions established as a result of the elimination of position limits in SPY. In addition, the report will note whether any problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any other information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the Extended Pilot. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the SPY Pilot Program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration during the Extended Pilot. In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make available to Commission staff data elements relating to the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program. Conditional on the findings in the SPY Pilot Report, the Exchange will file with the Commission a proposal to extend the pilot program, adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate the pilot. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by the expiration of the Extended Pilot, the position limits for SPY options would revert to limits in effect prior to the commencement of the SPY Pilot Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would be beneficial to market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to similar filings that the Exchange expects to be filed by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform position limits for a multiply listed options class.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 31, 2017 and March 22, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) (each of NYSE and NYSE MKT an “Exchange”), respectively, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NYSE and NYSE MKT propose to amend NYSE Rule 36 and NYSE MKT Rule 36—Equities, respectively, to permit Exchange floor brokers to use cellular or wireless telephones not provided by the Exchange while on the Floor
Currently, with Exchange approval, a floor broker may maintain a telephone line or use an Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephone, which permits a non-member off the Floor to communicate with a member or member organization on the Floor. Any floor broker receiving orders from the public over portable telephones must be properly qualified under Exchange rules to conduct such public business. Exchange rules prohibit the use of a portable telephone on the Floor other than one authorized and issued by the Exchange, with a limited exception that allows members and employees of member organizations to use personal portable telephones while outside of the Trading Floor
NYSE and NYSE MKT propose to allow a floor broker to use a personal cellular or wireless telephone, rather
NYSE and NYSE MKT explained that NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and NYSE MKT allow floor-based permit holders and their employees to use personal cellular telephones while on the exchanges' options trading floors.
Currently, when using an Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephone, a floor broker: (i) May engage in direct voice communication from the point of sale on the Floor to an off-Floor location; (ii) may provide status and oral execution reports as to orders previously received, as well as “market look” observations as historically have been routinely transmitted from a broker's booth location; (iii) must comply with NYSE Rule 123(e) or NYSE MKT Rule 123(e)—Equities, as applicable; and (iv) must comply with all other rules, policies, and procedures of both the Exchange and the federal securities laws, including record retention requirements.
NYSE and NYSE MKT currently prohibit floor brokers from using call-forwarding or conference calling, and Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephones do not have these capabilities.
Currently, NYSE MKT prohibits floor brokers from using Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephones that they use to trade equities while on the NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor.
Additionally, NYSE and NYSE MKT would require floor brokers to maintain records of the use of telephones and all other approved devices, including call logs, for at least three years.
NYSE and NYSE MKT propose to replace references to “portable,” “personal portable,” or “Exchange authorized and provided portable” telephones with “cellular or wireless” telephones.
NYSE and NYSE MKT noted that they will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule changes in a Regulatory Bulletin at least 30 days in advance of such implementation date and that the proposed rules changes will become operative within 90 days of approval.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
NYSE and NYSE MKT propose to allow floor brokers to use personal cellular or wireless telephones on the Floor, instead of Exchange authorized and Exchange provided telephones, subject to Exchange approval and specified registration requirements. The Commission notes that NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT currently allow floor brokers to use personal cellular or wireless telephones on their options trading floors.
When first approving NYSE floor brokers' use of Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephones on the Floor on a pilot basis, the Commission noted that the Exchange would have access to all telephone records and that proper surveillance is an essential component of any telephone access policy to an Exchange trading floor.
As the Commission originally stated when first approving floor brokers' use of Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephones, surveillance procedures are essential, and should help to ensure that floor brokers who are interacting with the public are authorized to do so and that orders are being handled in compliance with Exchange rules.
Essentially, the Exchanges' proposals deal with changes in ownership of the portable telephones. NYSE and NYSE MKT have amended their rules to address these changes by adding floor broker recordkeeping and other requirements within the existing regulatory structure of NYSE Rule 36 and NYSE MKT Rule 36—Equities, respectively. The responsibility of the Exchanges, as self-regulatory organizations, to conduct surveillance and ensure compliance with their rules remains the same, regardless of who owns the telephones. The Exchanges have assured us that they can fulfill their duties despite the change in ownership of the telephones and, based on that representation, we are approving the proposed rule changes.
NYSE and NYSE MKT propose specific registration requirements for the use of personal cellular or wireless telephones on the Floor, including an attestation that floor brokers are aware of applicable rules. The Exchange would have the ability to deny, limit, or revoke such registration.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes present no novel regulatory issues and therefore finds the proposed rule changes to be consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that it is reasonable for NYSE and NYSE MKT to allow floor brokers to use personal cellular or wireless telephones on their equities Floors, subject to Exchange approval, registration requirements, and a regulatory framework similar to that which currently exists for use of Exchange authorized and Exchange provided portable telephones on their equities Floors, and for the use of personal cellular telephones on options floors, in compliance with Exchange Rules and federal securities laws. The Commission expects that the Exchanges will monitor compliance with Exchange rules by floor brokers using personal cellular or wireless telephones on the Floor and will inform the Commission if they encounter unanticipated difficulties in enforcing their rules, and make any subsequent changes to their rules to address these issues, or otherwise find that the use of personal telephones raises regulatory concerns.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 6, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC,” each a “Clearing Agency,” and collectively, the “Clearing Agencies”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-003, SR-NSCC-2017-004, and SR-FICC-2017-007, respectively, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Proposed Rule Changes are proposals by the Clearing Agencies to adopt the Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements (“Policy”) and the Clearing Agency Capital Replenishment Plan (“Plan”), as described below.
The Policy is designed to provide the Clearing Agencies with a framework for holding sufficient liquid net assets (“LNA”) funded by equity to cover potential general business losses, as required under applicable regulatory standards.
The Policy would describe how the Treasury group of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“Treasury”)
According to the Policy, each Clearing Agency would calculate the General Business Risk Capital Requirement by first calculating three separate amounts related to general business risk. Specifically, each Clearing Agency would calculate an amount based on (i) the Clearing Agency's general business risk profile (“Risk-Based Capital Requirement”);
The Policy would require the Clearing Agencies to hold an amount of LNA funded by equity to meet the General Business Risk Capital Requirement in cash and cash equivalents, which are highly liquid securities or bank deposits.
As a second component of the Total Capital Requirement, the Policy would provide that each Clearing Agency maintain a Credit Risk Capital Requirement, in accordance with each Clearing Agency's respective rules.
The Credit Risk Capital Requirement is different than the general business risk regulatory requirement. Whereas the latter is designed to address general business risks, pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Act,
In addition to calculating and maintaining the Total Capital Requirement, the Clearing Agencies would each calculate and maintain a Buffer (
The Plan is designed to provide a viable mechanism for raising additional LNA funded by equity should a Clearing Agency's equity fall close to or below the amount required by the Total Capital Requirement.
Pursuant to the Plan, Treasury would be responsible for identify the triggering events for replenishing the LNA funded by equity. The Plan would outline the steps Treasury would take, including identifying the required equity, analyzing that Clearing Agency's financial outlook, and selecting the appropriate replenishment tools.
Under the Plan, the circumstances that could trigger the Plan would be (i) when equity held by a Clearing Agency is at or below the Clearing Agency's Total Capital Requirement, plus the equivalent of one month of operating expenses of that Clearing Agency, as determined pursuant to the Policy; or (ii) the Board of a Clearing Agency determines that the Plan should be implemented.
The Plan would set forth a number of guiding principles. For example, the Plan would provide that Treasury should have the necessary flexibility
The Plan would identify the replenishment tools that may be utilized when the Plan is triggered, as well as the estimated timeframe for using each tool. Specifically, the Plan would provide for two types of replenishment tools: (i) Bridge financing, which would provide immediate financing but would be considered only an initial step in implementation of the Plan; and (ii) capital replenishment, which would provide the affected Clearing Agency with the required additional equity.
According to the Plan, the replenishment tools could be effectuated by either DTCC or by a Clearing Agency directly.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of the Clearing Agencies be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.
As described above, the Policy and the Plan are designed to provide a framework to help each Clearing Agency monitor, identify, and manage their respective general business risks. In addition, the Policy and the Plan, together, would require each of the Clearing Agencies to prepare, calculate, and maintain sufficient LNA funded by equity to cover the General Business Risk Capital Requirement, Credit Risk Capital Requirement, and the Buffer.
As detailed above, the Policy would provide that, in order to cover potential general business losses, the General Business Risk Capital Requirement would be calculated and maintained as the larger of (i) an amount calculated based on the Clearing Agency's general business risk profile; (ii) an amount based on the time estimated to execute a recovery or orderly wind-down of the critical operations of the Clearing Agency; and (iii) an amount based on an analysis of the Clearing Agency's estimated operating expenses for a six-month period. The Policy would further require the Clearing Agencies to maintain the Credit Risk Capital Requirement to help address potential losses due to a participant default that were not covered through margin requirements, and the Buffer. The Policy would provide that the available LNA funded by equity would be continuously monitored and managed to ensure satisfaction of the Total Capital Requirement. Meanwhile, the Plan would provide a mechanism for raising additional LNA funded by equity should a Clearing Agency's equity fall close to or below the amount required by the Total Capital Requirement. Under such a framework, the Clearing Agencies could be better positioned to withstand stress caused by a general business loss or a participant default, and be better positioned to continue their critical operations and services, which helps to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Furthermore, as described above, by setting aside and maintaining the Total Capital Requirement for each Clearing Agency to absorb potential losses due to general business risk and a participant default, the Policy and the Plan are designed to help reduce the possibility of the Clearing Agencies' failure, mitigate the risk of financial loss contagion caused by the Clearing Agencies' failure, which could help further assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies, or for which they are responsible. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage their respective general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that the Clearing Agencies can continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize, including by satisfying Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) through (iii).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to determine the amount of LNA funded by equity based upon its general business risk profile and the length of time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down, as appropriate, of its critical operations and services if such action is taken.
As described above, pursuant to the Policy, each Clearing Agency would be required to calculate and maintain their respective Total Capital Requirement. The Total Capital Requirement would be calculated by summing each Clearing Agency's respective General Business Risk Capital Requirement and Credit Risk Capital Requirement, and would be satisfied by LNA funded by equity. Specifically, as detailed above, the Policy would provide that the General Business Risk Capital Requirement would be calculated as the larger of (i) an amount calculated based on the Clearing Agency's general business risk profile, defined as its Risk-Based Capital Requirement; (ii) an amount based on the time estimated to execute a recovery or orderly wind-down of the critical operations of the Clearing Agency, defined as its Recovery/Wind-down Capital Requirement; and (iii) an amount based on an analysis of the Clearing Agency's estimated operating expenses for a six-month period, defined as its Operating Expense Capital Requirement.
By requiring each Clearing Agency to calculate its General Business Risk Capital Requirement as the larger amount of the Risk-Based Capital Requirement, the Recovery/Wind-down Capital Requirement, and the Operating Expense Capital Requirement, and by requiring the General Business Risk Capital Requirement with LNA funded by equity, the Commission believes that the Policy is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) and (ii) under the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) under the Act further requires, in part, that the LNA funded by equity held by the Clearing Agencies pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) shall be (A) in addition to resources held to cover participant defaults or other credits and liquidity risks; and (B) of high quality and sufficiently liquid to allow the Clearing Agencies to meet their current and projected operating expenses under a range of scenarios, including in adverse market conditions.
As described above, the Policy would identify the General Business Risk Capital Requirement of each Clearing Agency as a separate component of each Clearing Agency's Total Capital Requirement, and would provide that LNA funded by equity as General Business Risk Capital Requirement be in addition to (i) LNA funded by equity held as that Clearing Agency's Credit Risk Capital Requirement; (ii) resources held by that Clearing Agency in compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) under the Act for credit risk (which resources are also held in addition to that Clearing Agency's Credit Risk Capital Requirement);
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) requires the Clearing Agencies to maintain a viable plan, approved by their Boards, and updated at least annually, for raising additional equity should the LNA funded by equity fall close to or below the amount required.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend IM-3120-2 to Rule 3120 to extend the pilot program that eliminated the position
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend IM-3120-2 to Rule 3120 to extend the time period of the SPY Pilot Program,
This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits, (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security, (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index, (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding margin, and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.
In the proposal to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension, permanent approval or termination of the program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot Program covering the period since the previous extension (the “Pilot Report”).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that extending the SPY Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead, the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to continue without interruption. Additionally, the Exchange expects other SROs will propose similar extensions.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under 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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend for another twelve (12) month time period the pilot program to eliminate position limits for options on the SPDR® S&P 500® exchange-traded fund (“SPY ETF” or “SPY”),
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 the Rule 1001 (Position Limits), to extend the current pilot which expires on July 12, 2017 for an additional twelve (12) month time period to July 12, 2018 (“Extended Pilot”). This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits; (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index; (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding margin; and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.
With this proposal, the Exchange submits the SPY report to the Commission, which report reflects, during the time period from May 2016 through May 2017, the trading of standardized SPY options with no position limits consistent with option exchange provisions.
As with the original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange represents that a SPY Pilot Report will be submitted at least thirty (30) days before the end of the Extended Pilot and would analyze that period. The Pilot Report will detail the size and different types of strategies employed with respect to positions established as a result of the elimination of position limits in SPY. In addition, the report will note whether any problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any other information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the Extended Pilot. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the SPY Pilot Program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration during the Extended Pilot. In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make available to Commission staff data elements relating to the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program. Conditional on the findings in the SPY Pilot Report, the Exchange will file with the Commission a proposal to extend the pilot program, adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate the pilot. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by the expiration of the Extended Pilot, the position limits for SPY options would revert to limits in effect prior to the commencement of the SPY Pilot Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would be beneficial to market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to similar filings that the Exchange expects to be filed by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform position limits for a multiply listed options class.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change by DTC would amend the Reorganizations Service Guide (“Guide”)
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 amend the Guide and the OA to establish the requirement that Agents use ATOP to process Consent Solicitations for BEO Securities. The Guide would also be amended to (i) reflect DTC's existing criteria for processing Consent Solicitations through ATOP, (ii) expand the use of ATOP to Consent Solicitations where Blocking is not required, and (iii) make ministerial changes to the Guide.
A Consent Solicitation is a request made for the affirmative consent of holders of securities pursuant to an indenture (“Holders”), to change the terms of such indenture.
If a Consent Solicitation is not processed through ATOP, but rather is processed outside of DTC, the Agent sends a Consent Solicitation memorandum outlining the terms of the offer to the registered Holders. Cede, as a registered Holder of the subject security, will provide the Agent with a listing of Participants to whose Accounts the Securities are credited, together with an omnibus proxy for
ATOP is a processing platform through which DTC processes certain voluntary reorganization events, including Consent Solicitations.
After a Consent Solicitation event has been approved in ATOP, any Participant to whose Account Securities subject to the Consent Solicitation are credited can enter consent instructions on behalf of its clients via the DTC Participant Transactions Over PTS function (“PTOP”)
Processing Consent Solicitations through ATOP provides an electronic approach to the collection and transmission of consent instructions that: (i) Eliminates the highly manual process involved with collection and reconciliation of hard-copy instructions, thereby mitigating the risks of processing errors such as lost documents, misallocations to multiple payees, and the miscounting of hard-copy consent instructions; (ii) reduces the risk of a missed expiration by eliminating the delay caused by mailing hard copies; (iii) facilitates the allocation of Consent Consideration by allowing Agents to centralize payment through DTC; (iv) enhances ability for Agents to handle multiple elections for a single event; and (v) eliminates the potential for consents to exceed a Participant's total outstanding position.
Despite these efficiencies, certain Agents still use the manual and paper-driven process of Consent Solicitations for BEO Securities outside of DTC.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would require that when an Agent is soliciting consent solicitation events for BEO Securities in DTC's FAST Program, and where Cede is the registered holder of the security and holds 100% of the principal in a global note, the Agent is required to use the ATOP consent processing service to solicit and collect consents from participant holders, provided that the consent solicitation satisfies the criteria for ATOP processing. DTC believes that this requirement would centralize and streamline the Consent Solicitation process for Agents and Participants with respect to BEO Securities.
For issues for which Cede is not the sole registered holder and holder of 100 percent of the issue,
As discussed above, the proposed rule change would apply only to Consent Solicitations for BEO Securities that satisfy DTC's current criteria for processing a Consent Solicitation. In accordance with current practice, if a consent solicitation does not satisfy all of the below criteria, it cannot be processed through ATOP. The criteria are:
1. The consent solicitation must be made by the issuer.
2. The consent solicitation must be for affirmative consent to modify the terms of the indenture.
3. The consent solicitation is not linked to a Holder meeting, vote, or Negative Consent.
4. Electronic transmission of consents does not violate the terms of the indenture.
5. Hard-copy documentation is not required to support the consent instructions.
6. Blocking:
a. If Blocking is a requirement of the consent solicitation and the event is predicated on record date, the record date must also be equal to the final expiration date of the consent solicitation.
b. If Blocking is a requirement of the consent solicitation, blocked positions are to be released no more than three (3) days after the expiration of the event and not exceeding forty-five (45) days from the date of the Consent Solicitation memorandum, unless there is an opportunity for a Participant to withdraw its consent instructions when the issuer extends the consent deadline beyond forty-five (45) days.
In addition to the above, there is currently a requirement that a Consent Solicitation processed through ATOP must require Blocking. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would expand ATOP to include Consent Solicitations that do not require Blocking.
The proposed rule change would update both the Guide and the OA to (i) reflect DTC's existing criteria for processing Consent Solicitations through ATOP and (ii) expand the use of ATOP to Consent Solicitations where Blocking is not required. The proposed rule change would also make ministerial changes to the Guide, by correcting punctuation and capitalization, and by removing an incorrect reference to a hard-copy Proxy Record Date Notice, which is not supplied as part of Proxy Announcements and therefore should not be referenced in the Guide as a source of information.
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,
DTC believes that the proposed rule change would not have an impact on competition with respect to access to ATOP. To use ATOP, an Agent does not have to be a Participant. A majority of existing Agents that handle Consent Solicitations are already electronically connected to ATOP.
DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit comments regarding the proposed rule change. To the extent DTC receives written comments on the proposed rule change; DTC will forward such comments to the Commission. DTC has presented this proposal to several industry groups and received positive feedback.
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)
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Establish ports and gateways that members use to connect to the Exchange with the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET architecture, and (2) amend the Schedule of Fees to adopt fees for those ports and gateways.
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: (1) Establish ports and gateways that members use to connect to the Exchange with the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET architecture,
1.
SQF is an interface that allows market makers to connect and send quotes, sweeps and auction responses into the Exchange. Data includes the following: (1) Options Auction Notifications (
2.
SQF Purge is a specific port for the SQF interface that only receives and notifies of purge requests from the market maker. Dedicated SQF Purge Ports enable market makers to seamlessly manage their ability to remove their quotes in a swift manner.
3.
The Exchange will also offer dedicated gateways to facilitate member access to the Exchange. A Dedicated SQF Host is an optional offering available to Market Makers
4.
OTTO is an interface that allows market participants to connect and send orders, auction orders and auction responses into the Exchange. Data includes the following: (1) Options Auction Notifications (
5.
CTI is a real-time clearing trade update message that is sent to a member after an execution has occurred and contains trade details. The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation. The information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The Clearing Member Trade Agreement or “CMTA” or The Options Clearing Corporation or “OCC” number; (ii) Exchange badge or house number; (iii) the Exchange internal firm identifier; and (iv) an indicator which will distinguish electronic and non-electronically delivered orders; (v) liquidity indicators and transaction type for billing purposes; (vi) capacity.
6.
FIX is an interface that allows market participants to connect and send orders and auction orders into the Exchange. Data includes the following: (1) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (2) System Event Messages (
7.
FIX Drop is a real-time order and execution update message that is sent to a member after an order been received/modified or an execution has occurred and contains trade details. The information includes, among other things, the following: (1) Executions; (2) cancellations; (3) modifications to an existing order (4) busts or post-trade corrections.
8.
Disaster Recovery ports provide connectivity to the exchange's disaster recovery data center in Chicago to be utilized in the event the exchange has to fail over during the trading day. DR Ports are available for SQF, SQF Purge, Dedicated SQF, CTI, OTTO, FIX and FIX Drop.
9.
Market Data ports provide connectivity to the Exchange's proprietary market data feeds, including the Nasdaq ISE Real-time Depth of Market Raw Data Feed (“Depth of Market Feed”),
10.
Currently, the Exchange charges Market Makers an application programming interface (“API”) fee for connecting to the Exchange. Each Market Maker session enabled for quoting, order entry, and listening is billed at a rate of $1,000 per month, and allows the Market Maker to submit an average of up to 1.5 million quotes per day.
With the re-platform of the Exchange's trading system, the Exchange will now be offering a new set of ports and gateways for connecting to the Exchange as described in more detail above. The Exchange therefore proposes to adopt fees for these connectivity options, which will initially be $0 per port per month.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it establishes ports and gateways used to connect to the ISE INET trading system. The Exchange's offerings are changing with the re-platform as the ports and gateways used by INET differ from those used to connect to the T7 trading system. Market participants that connect to the INET trading system may use the following connectivity options mentioned above: SQF, SQF Purge, Dedicated SQF Hosts, OTTO, CTI, FIX, FIX Drop, Disaster Recovery, and Market Data. With the exception of Dedicated SQF Hosts, these connectivity options are the same as those currently used by the Exchange's affiliates, and therefore offer a familiar experience for market participants. The ports and gateways described in this filing provide a range of important features to market participants, including the ability to submit orders and quotes, receive market data, and perform other functions necessary to manage trading on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that filing to establish these port and gateway options will increase transparency to market participants regarding connectivity options provided by the Exchange.
With respect to Dedicated SQF Hosts, the Exchange notes that this offering is meant to be similar to a current offering of the ISE, which currently offers both shared gateways and dedicated gateways for members that desire their own dedicated gateways as a risk management alternative. Adding this new offering on the Exchange will allow members that currently use dedicated gateways on the Exchange's T7 trading system to continue to use a similar connectivity option with the migration to INET. The Exchange believes that market makers are the participants that are likely to benefit from dedicated gateways, and is therefore only offering dedicated gateways for the SQF interface. The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to offer dedicated gateways only for SQF ports, which are only available to market makers. Other exchanges also have gateways that are restricted to market makers. The New York Stock Exchange, for example, offers DMM Gateways that are only available to their Designated Market Makers.
The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and public interest to establish the Trades Feed as this feed, which is currently provided free of charge, provides valuable trade information to subscribers. The Trades Feed designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by providing all subscribers with data that should enable them to make informed decisions on trading in ISE options by using the data to assess current market conditions that directly affect such decisions. The market data provided by this feed removes impediments to, and is designed to further perfect, the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by making the ISE market more transparent and accessible to market participants making routing decisions concerning their options orders. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to add the Trades Feed to the Schedule of Fees at a cost of $0 per month to alert members to the availability of this market data product. The Exchange notes that the Trades Feed is a current offering that the Exchange is adding to its Schedule of Fees at this time to increase transparency to members.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to adopt fees for the various ports and gateways used to connect to the Exchange's new INET trading system. As explained above, the ports and gateways that will be used to connect to the INET trading system are generally the same as those currently used by the Exchange's affiliates, and in the case of Dedicated SQF Hosts, mirrors a current offering of the Exchange. The Exchange has determined to offer these connectivity options free of cost for the time being in order to aid in the migration of the Exchange's trading system to INET technology. Adding these fees to the Schedule of Fees will clarify to members that they will not have to pay for access to both T7 and INET trading systems. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed fee change is unfairly discriminatory as each of the proposed port and gateway fees are initially proposed to be free of charge for all members.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
In its filing, ISE requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay in order to enable the Exchange to establish ports and gateways for members to connect to the Exchange's INET trading system and access a related market data offering. The Commission believes that such waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. ISE notes that members have received numerous communications indicating the availability of ISE INET ports and gateways and will be using these connectivity options as soon as symbols migrate to the INET architecture. Similarly, members have been made aware of the availability of the Trades Feed. To avoid disrupting member usage of ISE's connectivity and data options, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
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.
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 the Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to adopt initial and continued listing standards for subscription receipts. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt initial and continued listing standards for the listing of subscription receipts (“Subscription Receipts”).
Subscription Receipts are a financing technique that has been used for many years by Canadian public companies. Typically, Canadian companies use Subscription Receipts as a means of providing cash consideration in merger or acquisition transactions. Subscription Receipts are sold in a public offering that occurs after the execution of an acquisition agreement. The proceeds of the Subscription Receipt offering are held in a custody account and, if the related acquisition closes, the Subscription Receipt holders receive a specified number of shares of the issuer. If the acquisition does not close, then the Subscription Receipts are redeemed for their original purchase price plus any interest accrued on the custody account. The benefit of Subscription Receipts to the issuer is that they provide a contingent form of financing that only becomes permanent if the acquisition is completed. By contrast, a company financing the cash consideration for an acquisition by means of a traditional equity or debt offering is at risk of having incurred unnecessary dilution of its shareholders or indebtedness if the related acquisition fails to close. Subscription Receipts provide investors with flexibility to elect to invest in the post-merger company and not in the company in its pre-merger form.
A number of Canadian issuers whose common stock is listed on the Exchange have approached the Exchange in recent years about the possibility of dually-listing on the Exchange Subscription Receipts that they planned to list in Canada. More recently, market participants have also inquired about the possibility of the use of Subscription Receipts as a fundraising alternative for U.S. domestic issuers. As a result of this interest, the Exchange is now proposing to adopt proposed Section 102.08 of the Manual as a listing standard for Subscription Receipts.
The Exchange will list Subscription Receipts pursuant to proposed Section 102.08 only if they meet the following requirements:
(a) The issuer must be an NYSE listed company that is not currently non-compliant with any applicable continued listing standard.
(b) The proceeds of the Subscription Receipts offering are designated solely for use in connection with the consummation of a specified acquisition that is the subject of a binding acquisition agreement (the “Specified Acquisition”).
(c) The proceeds of the Subscription Receipts offering will be held in an interest-bearing custody account by an independent custodian.
(d) The Subscription Receipts will promptly be redeemed for cash (i) at any time the Specified Acquisition is terminated, or (ii) if the Specified Acquisition does not close within twelve months from the date of issuance of the Subscription Receipts, or such earlier time as is specified in the operative agreements. If the Subscription Receipts are redeemed, the holders will receive cash payments equal to their proportion share of the funds in the custody account, including any interest earned on those funds.
(e) If the Specified Acquisition is consummated, the holders of the Subscription Receipts will receive the shares of common stock for which their Subscription Receipts are exchangeable.
(f) At the time of initial listing, the Subscription Receipts must have a price per share of at least $4.00, a minimum total market value of publicly-held shares of $100 million, 1,100,000
(g) The sale of the Subscription Receipts and the issuance of the common stock of the issuer in exchange for the Subscription Receipts must both be registered under the Securities Act.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 802.01B to include continued listing standards applicable to Subscription Receipts listed under proposed Section 102.08. The Exchange will consider initiating suspension and delisting procedures when the number of publicly-held shares is less than 100,000 or the number of holders is less than 100. In addition, Subscription Receipts will be subject to immediate suspension and delisting if (i) the total market capitalization of the Subscription Receipts is below $15 million over 30 consecutive trading days (ii) the related common equity security ceases to be listed or (iii) the issuer announces that the Specified Acquisition has been terminated. An issuer of Subscription Receipts will not be eligible to follow the procedures outlined in Section 802.01 [sic] with respect to these criteria, and any such security will be subject to delisting procedures as set forth in Section 804.
In addition to the foregoing, Subscription Receipts will be subject to potential delisting for all of the reasons generally applicable to operating companies under Section 802.01. The Exchange notes that an issuer of Subscription Receipts may be subject to delisting at the time of closing of the related acquisition pursuant to the “backdoor listing” provisions of Section 703.08(E) of the Manual.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 202.06 of the Manual to provide that whenever it halts trading in a security of a listed company pending dissemination of material news or implements any other required regulatory trading halt, the Exchange will also halt trading in any listed Subscription Receipt that is exchangeable by its terms into the common stock of such company.
The Exchange will monitor activity in Subscription Receipts to identify and deter any potential improper trading activity in such securities and will adopt enhanced surveillance procedures to enable it to monitor Subscription Receipts alongside the common equity securities into which they are convertible. Additionally, the Exchange will rely on its existing trading surveillances, administered by the Exchange, or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
Section 902.06 of the Manual sets forth listing fees for “short-term” securities,
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 902.06 to remove a reference to the annual fees charged prior to January 1, 2017, as that reference is now irrelevant.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed listing standard is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act in that it contains requirements in relation to the listing of Subscription Receipts that provide adequate protections for investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that investors are significantly protected by the requirements in the proposed rule that: (i) The proceeds of the Subscription Receipt offering must be held in an interest-bearing custody account controlled by an independent custodian pending consummation of the Specified Acquisition, (ii) the custody account must be liquidated and the funds distributed pro rata to the Subscription Receipt holders if the Specified Acquisition is not consummated within 12 months, and (iii) any interest earned on the custody account must be distributed pro rata to the Subscription Receipt holders upon such liquidation.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of security and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the fees set forth in Section 902.06 of the Manual is consistent with Section 6(b)(4)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The purpose of the proposed rule is to enhance competition by providing issuers and investors with an additional type of listed security that is not currently available on any domestic listing exchange and, as such, the Exchange does not believe it imposes any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend for another twelve (12) month time period the pilot program to eliminate position limits for options on the SPDR® S&P 500® exchange-traded fund (“SPY ETF” or “SPY”),
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 the Supplementary Material at the end of Chapter III, Section 7 (Position Limits) to extend the current pilot which expires on July 12, 2017 for an additional twelve (12) month time period to July 12, 2018 (“Extended Pilot”). This filing does not propose any substantive changes to the SPY Pilot Program. In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported the original proposal of the SPY Pilot Program, including (1) the availability of economically equivalent products and their respective position limits; (2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (3) the market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index; (4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding margin; and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.
With this proposal, the Exchange submits the SPY report to the Commission, which report reflects, during the time period from May 2016 through May 2017, the trading of standardized SPY options with no position limits consistent with option exchange provisions.
As with the original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange represents that a SPY Pilot Report will be submitted at least thirty (30) days before the end of the Extended Pilot and would analyze that period. The Pilot Report will detail the size and different types of strategies employed with respect to positions established as a result of the elimination of position limits in SPY. In addition, the report will note whether any problems resulted due to the no limit approach and any other information that may be useful in evaluating the effectiveness of the Extended Pilot. The Pilot Report will compare the impact of the SPY Pilot Program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and the volatility in the price of the underlying SPY shares, particularly at expiration during the Extended Pilot. In preparing the report the Exchange will utilize various data elements such as volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange will make available to Commission staff data elements relating to the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program. Conditional on the findings in the SPY Pilot Report, the Exchange will file with the Commission a proposal to extend the pilot program, adopt the pilot program on a permanent basis or terminate the pilot. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by the expiration of the Extended Pilot, the position limits for SPY options would revert to limits in effect prior to the commencement of the SPY Pilot Program.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would be beneficial to market participants, including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors, by permitting them to establish greater positions when pursuing their investment goals and needs. The Exchange also believes that economically equivalent products should be treated in an equivalent manner so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage, especially with respect to position limits. Treating SPY and SPX options differently by virtue of imposing different position limits is inconsistent with the notion of promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing impediments to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to similar filings that the Exchange expects to be filed by other options exchanges. The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options exchanges and to establish uniform position limits for a multiply listed options class.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would revise the DTC Settlement Service Guide (“Service Guide”)
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.
Memo Seg allows a Participant to elect to protect a designated quantity of Securities in a given CUSIP (“Designated Quantity”) from unintended intraday Delivery at DTC.
By providing standing instructions, a Receiving Participant may currently elect to have Deliveries of Securities for certain types of transactions automatically increase the Receiving Participant's Designated Quantity.
In this regard, pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would revise the Service Guide to allow a Receiving Participant in a DRS-related transaction to elect to have its Designated Quantity automatically increased when the Delivering Participant uses Codes 390 or 391.
Pursuant to the Service Guide, a Free Delivery made by a Participant always reduces its Designated Quantity unless an exception for a given transaction type is expressly provided for. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the text of the Service Guide would be revised so that a “Reclaim” of a DRS-related Free Delivery, where the related transaction is one that the Receiving Participant does not know (“DK”) (performed with Code 396), would not automatically reduce the Receiving Participant's Designated Quantity. This change would allow a Participant to exercise greater control in managing its Designated Quantity.
The proposed rule change would also make technical changes to the Memo Seg section of the Service Guide to:
a. (i) Change references to “you” and “your” to “a Participant,” “the Participant,” “Participants” or “its,” as applicable and (ii) make grammatical and spacing changes to the text to provide enhanced clarity and readability with respect to provisions related to Memo Seg; and
b. Add an annex to the Service Guide containing the descriptions of the Codes listed in the “Non-Optional Memo Segregation Transactions” and the “Optional Memo Segregation Indicators” subsections.
The proposed rule change would be effective upon filing with the Commission.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
The proposed rule change is also designed to be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) of the Act,
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on competition because the proposed rule change would merely enhance the ability of any Receiving Participant to control Securities in its Account.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC. DTC management has discussed its intent to implement the proposed change with SIFMA and Participants.
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, 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-2017-012 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 28, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
FINRA proposes to adopt with amendments the NASD and Incorporated NYSE rules relating to qualification and registration as FINRA rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. In addition, FINRA proposes to restructure the current representative-level qualification examinations, create a general knowledge examination and specialized knowledge examinations and amend the CE requirements, among other changes.
Proposed Rule 1210 provides that each person engaged in the investment
Proposed Rule 1210.01 provides that each member, except a member with only one associated person, shall have at least two officers or partners who are registered as General Securities Principals, provided that, a member whose activities are limited in scope, may instead have two officers or partners who are registered in a principal category that corresponds to the scope of the member's activities. The requirement that a member have a minimum of two principals shall apply to broker-dealers seeking to become FINRA members, as well as existing members.
The proposed Rule also provides that an applicant for membership or existing member shall have at least one person: (i) Registered as a Financial and Operations Principal or an Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal; (ii) designated as a Principal Financial Officer; and (iii) designated as a Principal Operations Officer. An applicant for membership or existing member, if the nature of its business so requires, shall also have at least one person registered as: (1) An Investment Banking Principal; (2) a Research Principal; (3) a Securities Trader Principal; and (4) a Registered Options Principal.
Proposed Rule 1210.02 provides that a member may make application for, or maintain the registration as a representative or principal of, any associated person of the member and any individual engaged in the investment banking or securities business of a foreign securities affiliate or subsidiary of the member. The proposed Rule also provides that individuals maintaining permissive registrations shall be considered registered persons and subject to all FINRA rules, to the extent relevant to their activities.
In addition, proposed Rule 1210.02 provides that, consistent with the requirements of Rule 3110, members shall have adequate supervisory systems and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that individuals with permissive registrations do not act outside the scope of their assigned functions. The proposed rule further provides that, with respect to an individual who solely maintains a permissive registration(s), the individual's direct supervisor shall not be required to be a registered person. However, for purposes of compliance with Rule 3110(a)(5), a member shall assign a registered supervisor who shall be responsible for periodically contacting such individual's direct supervisor to verify that the individual is not acting outside the scope of his assigned functions. If such individual is permissively registered as a representative, the registered supervisor shall be registered as a representative or principal. If the individual is permissively registered as a principal, the registered supervisor shall be registered as a principal. However, the registered supervisor of an individual who solely maintains a permissive registration(s) shall not be required to be registered in the same registration category as the permissively-registered individual.
Proposed Rule 1210.02 expands the scope of permissive registrations by allowing any associated person (and any individual engaged in the investment banking or securities business of a foreign securities affiliate or subsidiary) of a member to obtain and maintain any registration permitted by the member.
Proposed Rule 1210.03 provides that, before the registration of a person as a representative can become effective under proposed Rule 1210, the person must pass the Securities Industry Essentials (“SIE”) and an appropriate representative qualification examination as specified in proposed Rule 1220(b). In addition, before the registration of a person as a principal can become effective under proposed Rule 1210, the person must pass an appropriate principal qualification examination as specified in proposed Rule 1220(a).
The proposed Rule further provides that, if the job functions of a registered representative, other than an individual registered as an Order Processing Assistant Representative or a Foreign Associate, change so as to require the person to register in another representative category, the person shall not be required to pass the SIE. Rather, the registered person would need to pass only an appropriate representative qualification exam as specified in proposed Rule 1220(b).
Proposed Rule 1210.03 reflects the proposed restructuring of the representative-level qualification exam program, whereby representative-level registrants would be required to take a general knowledge exam (the SIE) and a specialized knowledge exam appropriate to their job functions at the firm with which they are associating.
In addition, proposed Rule 1210.03 expands the pool of individuals eligible to take the SIE by providing that all persons are eligible to take the SIE.
Proposed Rule 1210.04 provides that a member may designate any person currently registered, or who becomes registered, with the member as a representative to function as a principal for a period of 120 calendar days before passing an appropriate principal qualification exam, provided that such person has at least 18 months of experience functioning as a registered representative within the five-year period immediately preceding the designation and has fulfilled all applicable prerequisite registration and exam requirements, as well as paid applicable fees, before designation as a principal. However, in no event may such person function as a principal beyond the initial 120 calendar day period without having successfully passed an appropriate principal qualification exam. The requirements above apply to designations to any principal category, including those categories that are not subject to a prerequisite representative registration requirement. Further, a person registered as an Order Processing Assistant Representative or a Foreign Associate shall not be eligible to be designated as a principal under the rule.
In addition, proposed Rule 1210.04 provides that a member may designate any person currently registered, or who becomes registered, with the member as a principal to function in another principal category for a period of 120 calendar days before passing an appropriate principal qualification exam. However, in no event may such person function in such other principal category beyond the initial 120 calendar day period without having successfully passed an appropriate qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1210.05 provides that associated persons taking the SIE shall be subject to the SIE Rules of Conduct and associated persons taking any representative or principal exam shall be subject to the Rules of Conduct for representative and principal examinations. A violation of the SIE Rules of Conduct or the Rules of Conduct for representative and principal examinations by an associated person shall be deemed to be a violation of proposed Rule 2010. If FINRA determines that an associated person has violated the SIE Rules of Conduct or the Rules of Conduct for representative and principal examinations, the associated person may forfeit the results of the exam and may be subject to disciplinary action by FINRA.
In addition, the proposed Rule provides that individuals taking the SIE who are not associated persons shall agree to be subject to the SIE Rules of Conduct. If FINRA determines that such individuals cheated on the SIE or that they misrepresented their qualifications to the public subsequent to passing the SIE, they may forfeit the results of the examination and may be prohibited from retaking the SIE.
Further, proposed Rule 1210.05 provides that (i) FINRA considers all of its qualification examinations content to be highly confidential; (ii) the removal of exam content from an exam center, reproduction, disclosure, receipt from or passing to any person, or use for study purposes of any portion of such qualification exam, or any other use that would compromise the effectiveness of the exams and the use in any manner and at any time of the questions or answers to the exams is prohibited and deemed to be a violation of proposed Rule 2010; and (iii) an applicant cannot receive assistance while taking the exam and shall certify that no assistance was given to or received by the applicant during the exam.
Proposed Rule 1210.06 provides that any person who fails to pass a qualification exam prescribed by FINRA shall be permitted to take that exam again after a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed from the date of the person's last attempt to pass that exam, except that any person who fails to pass an exam three or more times in succession within a two-year period shall be prohibited from again taking that exam until 180 calendar days has elapsed from the date of the person's last attempt to pass that exam. The proposed Rule provides that the waiting periods for retaking a failed exam apply to the SIE and the representative and principal exams, and that individuals taking the SIE who are not associated persons must agree to be subject to the same waiting periods for retaking the SIE.
Proposed Rule 1210.07 provides that all registered persons, including those individuals who solely maintain permissive registrations pursuant to proposed Rule 1210.02, shall satisfy the Regulatory Element of CE
In addition, the proposed Rule provides that if a person registered with a member has a CE deficiency with respect to that registration as provided under proposed Rule 1240(a), such person shall not be permitted to be registered in another registration category under proposed Rule 1220 with that member or to be registered in any registration category under proposed Rule 1220 with another member, until the person has satisfied the deficiency.
FINRA is proposing to adopt Rule 1210.07 to codify current practice and to clarify that all registered persons, including those who solely maintain a permissive registration, are required to satisfy the Regulatory Element of CE, as specified in proposed Rule 1240.
As is currently the case, proposed Rule 1210.08 provides that the representative- and principal-level registrations would be subject to a two-year expiration period. It also establishes a four-year expiration period for the SIE.
Proposed Rule 1210.08 also provides that any person whose registration has been revoked pursuant to Rule 8310 shall be required to pass a principal or
Proposed Rule 1210.09 provides that, upon request by a member, FINRA shall waive the applicable qualification exam(s) for an individual designated with FINRA as working for a financial services industry affiliate of a member if the following conditions are met: (i) Before the individual's initial designation, the individual was registered as a representative or principal with FINRA for a total of five years within the most recent 10-year period, including for the most recent year with the member that initially designated the individual; (ii) the waiver request is made within seven years of the individual's initial designation; (iii) the initial designation and any subsequent designation(s) were made concurrently with the filing of the individual's related Form U5; (iv) the individual continuously worked for the financial services industry affiliate(s) of a member since the individual's last Form U5 filing; (v) the individual has complied with the Regulatory Element of CE as specified in proposed Rule 1240(a); and (vi) the individual does not have any pending or adverse regulatory matters, or terminations, that are reportable on the Form U4, and has not otherwise been subject to a statutory disqualification as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act while the individual was designated as eligible for a waiver. As used in proposed Rule 1210.09, a “financial services industry affiliate of a member” is a legal entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a member and is regulated by the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, state securities authorities, federal or state banking authorities, state insurance authorities, or substantially equivalent foreign regulatory authorities.
FINRA states that the proposed Rule will provide a process whereby individuals who would be working for a financial services industry affiliate of a member would terminate their registrations with the member and would be granted a waiver of their requalification requirements upon re-registering with a member, provided the firm that is requesting the waiver and the individual satisfy the criteria for the waiver as set forth in the rule.
Under the proposed waiver process, the first time a registered person is designated as eligible for a waiver based on the criteria set forth in the rule, the member with which the individual is registered would notify FINRA of the designation and concurrently file a full Form U5 terminating the individual's registration. Following the Form U5 filing, an individual could move between the financial services affiliates of a member so long as the individual is continuously working for an affiliate. An individual designated as eligible for the waiver would be subject to the Regulatory Element of CE while working for a financial services industry affiliate of a member.
Upon registering an eligible person pursuant to the waiver process set forth in the rule, a firm would file a Form U4 requesting the appropriate registration(s) for the individual and submit an exam waiver request to FINRA,
Proposed Rule 1210.10 addresses the status of current and former registered persons serving on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States (“U.S. Armed Forces”). Among other things, the rule permits a registered person of a member who volunteers for or is called to active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces to be registered in an inactive status and remain eligible to receive ongoing transaction-related compensation. In addition, the proposed rule provides that FINRA will defer the lapse of registration requirements and the SIE for a person who was formerly registered with a member that volunteers for or is called to active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time within two years after the date the person ceased to be registered with a member or for a person that is placed on inactive status while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces who ceases to be registered with a member.
Proposed Rule 1210.11 provides that members shall not register or maintain the registration of any person unless consistent with the requirements of proposed Rule 1210. FINRA states that proposed Rule 1210.11 replaces certain provisions of current NASD Rules 1021(a) and 1031(a) that prohibited a member from maintaining certain registrations and that would conflict with the permissive registration regime under proposed Rule 1210.02.
FINRA is proposing to integrate the various registration categories and related definitions contained in the NASD rules into a single rule, proposed Rule 1220,
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(1) defines a “principal” as any person associated with a member, including, but not limited to, sole proprietor, officer, partner, manager of office of supervisory jurisdiction, director or other person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, who is actively engaged in the management of the member's investment banking or securities business,
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(2) provides that each principal (as defined in Rule 1220(a)(1)) shall be required to register as a General Securities Principal, subject to the following exceptions:
• If a principal's activities include the functions of a Compliance Officer, a Financial and Operations Principal (or an Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal, as applicable), a Principal Financial Officer, a Principal Operations Officer, an Investment Banking Principal, a Research Principal, a Securities Trader Principal, or a Registered Options Principal, then such person shall appropriately register in one or more of those categories;
• if a principal's activities are limited solely to the functions of a Government Securities Principal, an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Principal, a Direct Participation Programs Principal, or a Private Securities Offerings Principal, then such person may appropriately register in one or more of those categories in lieu of registering as a General Securities Principal;
• if a principal's activities are limited solely to the functions of a General Securities Sales Supervisor, then such person may appropriately register in that category in lieu of registering as a General Securities Principal, provided, however, that if such person is engaged in options sales activities, such person shall be required to register as a Registered Options Principal or as a General Securities Sales Supervisor; and
• if a principal's activities are limited solely to the functions of a Supervisory Analyst, then such person may appropriately register in that category in lieu of registering as a General Securities Principal, provided, however, that if such person is responsible for approving the content of a member's research report on equity securities, such person shall be required to register as a Research Principal or as a Supervisory Analyst.
The proposed rule provides that all individuals registering as General Securities Principals after the effective date of the proposed rule change shall, before or concurrent with such registration, become registered as a General Securities Representative and either (i) pass the General Securities Principal qualification exam or (ii) register as a General Securities Sales Supervisor and pass the General Securities Principal Sales Supervisor Module qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(3) provides that each person designated as a Chief Compliance Officer on Schedule A of Form BD as specified in FINRA Rule 3130(a) shall be required to register as a Compliance Officer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the proposed rule provides that an individual designated as a Chief Compliance Officer on Schedule A of Form BD of a member that is engaged in limited investment banking or securities business may be registered in a principal category under proposed Rule 1220(a) that corresponds to the limited scope of the member's business instead of being required to register as a Compliance Officer.
The proposed rule provides that all individuals registering as Compliance Officers after the effective date of the proposed rule change, shall, before or concurrent with such registration: (i) Become registered as a General Securities Representative and pass the General Securities Principal qualification exam; or (ii) pass the Compliance Official qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(4)(A) provides that each member that is operating pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15c3-1(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(i) or (a)(8) under the Exchange Act shall designate a Financial and Operations Principal. In addition, each member subject to the requirements of Rule 15c3-1, other than a member operating pursuant to Rule 15c3-1(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(i) or (a)(8), shall designate either a Financial and Operations Principal or an Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal.
In addition, proposed Rule 1220(a)(4)(B) provides that each member shall designate a: (i) Principal Financial Officer with primary responsibility for financial filings and those books and records related to such filings; and (ii) Principal Operations Officer with primary responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the member's business, including overseeing the receipt and delivery of securities and funds, safeguarding customer and member assets, calculation and collection of margin from customers and processing dividend receivables and payables and reorganization redemptions and those books and records related to such activities. Each member that self-clears, or that clears for other members, shall be required to designate separate persons to function as Principal Financial Officer and Principal Operations Officer; such persons may also carry out the other responsibilities of a Financial and Operations Principal and an Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal.
The proposed rule provides that each person seeking to register as a Financial and Operations Principal shall, before or concurrent with such registration, pass the Financial and Operations Principal qualification exam. Each person seeking to register as an Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal shall, before or concurrent with such registration, pass the Financial and Operations Principal qualification exam or the Introducing Broker-Dealer Financial and Operations Principal qualifications exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(5) requires each principal who is responsible for supervising the investment banking activities specified in proposed Rule 1220(b)(5) to register as an Investment Banking Principal. The proposed rule provides that all individuals registering as Investment Banking Principals after the effective date of the proposed rule change shall, before or concurrent with such registration, become registered as an Investment Banking Representative
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(6) requires each principal who is responsible for approving the content of a member's research reports on equity securities, or who, with respect to equity research, is responsible for supervising the overall conduct of a Research Analyst or a Supervisory Analyst to register as a Research Principal, subject to the following exceptions:
• If a principal's activities are limited solely to approving the content of a member's research reports on equity securities, then the person may register as a Supervisory Analyst in lieu of registering as a Research Principal;
• if a principal's activities are limited solely to reviewing a member's research reports on equity securities only for compliance with the disclosure provisions of Rule 2241, then the person may register as a General Securities Principal in lieu of registering as a Research Principal; and
• if a principal's activities are limited solely to approving the content of a member's research reports on debt securities or the content of third-party research reports, then the person may register as a General Securities Principal or as a Supervisory Analyst in lieu of registering as a Research Principal.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, all individuals registering as Research Principals after the effective date of the proposed rule change must, before or concurrent with such registration: (i) Become registered as a Research Analyst and pass the General Securities Principal qualification exam; or (ii) become registered as a Supervisory Analyst and pass the General Securities Principal qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(7) requires each principal who is responsible for supervising the securities trading activities specified in proposed Rule 1220(b)(4) to register as a Securities Trader Principal. Further, each person seeking to register as a Securities Trader Principal must, before or concurrent with such registration, become registered as a Securities Trader and pass the General Securities Principal qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(8) requires each member engaged in transactions in options with the public to have at least one Registered Options Principal. In addition, the proposed Rule requires each principal who is responsible for supervising a member's options sales practices with the public, including a person designated pursuant to Rule 3110(a)(2), to register as a Registered Options Principal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a principal's options activities are limited solely to those activities that may be supervised by a General Securities Sales Supervisor as specified in Rule 2360, then such person may register as a General Securities Sales Supervisor in lieu of registering as a Registered Options Principal.
The proposed rule provides that all individuals registering as Registered Options Principals after the effective date of the proposed rule change shall, before or concurrent with such registration, become registered as a General Securities Representative and pass the Registered Options Principal qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220.02 provides specific requirements relating to persons engaging in security futures activities. Proposed Rule 1220.03 provides specific requirements relating to members with one Registered Options Principal.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(9) requires a principal to register as a Government Securities Principal if his activities include certain activities relating to the management or supervision of the member's government securities business. If a principal's functions include the activities specified in the rule, then the individual may register as a General Securities Principal in lieu of registering as a Government Securities Principal.
The proposed rule provides that all individuals registering as Government Securities Principals after the effective date of the proposed rule change shall, before or concurrent with such registration, become registered as a General Securities Representative.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(10) provides that each principal may register as a General Securities Sales Supervisor if the Principal's supervisory responsibilities in the investment banking or securities business of a member are limited to the securities sales activities of the member. The proposed rule precludes a person registered solely as a General Securities Sales Supervisor from performing the following activities: (a) Supervision of the origination and structuring of underwritings; (b) supervision of market making commitments; (c) supervision of the custody of broker-dealer or customer funds or securities for purposes of Rule 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act; or (d) supervision of overall compliance with financial responsibility rules for broker-dealers promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act.
The proposed rule provides that each person seeking to register as a General Securities Sales Supervisor shall, before or concurrent with such registration, become registered as a General Securities Representative and pass the General Securities Sales Supervisor qualification exams.
Proposed Rule 1220.04 sets forth additional information relating to the General Securities Sales Supervisor registration category.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(11) provides that a principal may register as an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Principal if the person's activities in the investment banking or securities business of a member are limited to the activities specified in proposed Rule 1220(b)(7). Each person seeking to register as an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Principal shall, before or concurrent with such registration: (i) Become registered as a General Securities Representative and pass the Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Principal qualification exam; or (ii) become registered as an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Representative and pass the Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Principal qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(12) provides that a principal may register with FINRA as a Direct Participation Program Principal if the person's activities in the investment banking or securities business of a member are limited to the activities specified in proposed Rule 1220(b)(8). Each person seeking to register as a Direct Participation Program Principal shall, before or concurrent with such registration: (i) Become registered as a General Securities Representative and pass the Direct Participation Program Principal qualification exam; or (ii) become registered as a Direct Participation Programs Representative and pass the Direct Participation Program Principal qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(12) provides that a principal may register as a Private Securities Offerings Principal if the person's activities in the investment
FINRA proposes to create this limited principal registration category for principals whose activities are limited solely to the supervision of the private securities offerings specified in proposed Rule 1220(b)(9) (current NASD Rule 1032(h)) in order to provide firms with greater flexibility in designing their supervisory structures.
Proposed Rule 1220(a)(14) provides that a principal may register as a Supervisory Analyst if the Principal's activities are limited to approving the following: (a) The content of a member's research reports on equity securities; (b) the content of a member's research reports on debt securities; (c) the content of third-party research reports; (d) retail communications as described in Rule 2241(a)(11)(A); or (e) other research communications that do not meet the definition of “research report” under Rule 2241, provided that the Supervisory Analyst has technical expertise in the particular product area. The activities of a Supervisory Analyst engaged in equity research must be supervised by a Research Principal. Each person seeking to register as a Supervisory Analyst shall, before or concurrent with such registration, pass the Supervisory Analyst qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220(b)(1) defines a “representative” as any person associated with a member, including assistant officers other than principals, who is engaged in the member's investment banking or securities business, such as supervision, solicitation, conduct of business in securities or the training of persons associated with a member for any of these functions.
Proposed Rule 1220(b)(2) requires a representative (as defined in proposed Rule 1220(b)(1)) to register as a General Securities Representative, subject to the following exceptions: (a) If a representative's activities include the functions of an Operations Professional, a Securities Trader, an Investment Banking Representative, or a Research Analyst, then the person must register in one or more of those categories; and (b) if a representative's activities are limited solely to the functions of an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Representative, a Direct Participation Programs Representative, or a Private Securities Offerings Representative, then the person may register in one or more of those categories in lieu of registering as a General Securities Representative.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 1220(b)(2), all individuals registering as General Securities Representatives after the effective date of the proposed rule change shall, before or concurrent with such registration, pass the SIE and the General Securities Representative qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1220.01 provides that persons who are in good standing as a representative with the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom or with a Canadian stock exchange or securities regulator shall be exempt from the requirement to pass the SIE.
FINRA states that, as part of the proposed restructuring of the representative-level exams, it is proposing to eliminate the United Kingdom Securities Representative and Canada Securities Representative registration categories, and associated Series 17, Series 37, and Series 38 exams. As a result, FINRA is proposing to adopt Rule 1220.01 to provide individuals who are associated persons of firms and hold foreign registrations an alternative, more flexible, process to obtain a FINRA representative-level registration.
Proposed Rules 1220(b)(3), 1220(b)(4), 1220(b)(5), 1220(b)(6), 1220(b)(7), 1220(b)(8) and 1220(b)(9) set forth the registration requirements for Operations Professionals, Securities Traders, Investment Banking Representatives, Research Analysts, Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Representatives, Direct Participation Programs Representatives, and Private Securities Offerings Representatives, respectively. Proposed Rule 1220.05 sets forth additional information relating to the Operations Professional registration requirement.
FINRA states that, consistent with the restructuring of the representative-level examinations, proposed Rules 1220(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8) and (b)(9) will require individuals registering in the respective registration categories to pass the SIE and the applicable representative-level exam(s).
With respect to Research Analysts, FINRA is proposing to replace the General Securities Representative prerequisite registration requirement with the SIE so that individuals registering as Research Analysts would be required to pass the SIE and the Research Analyst exams. In addition, FINRA states that, consistent with existing guidance, it is proposing to clarify that the scope of the Research Analyst registration requirement in proposed Rule 1220(b)(6) is limited to associated persons who produce equity research reports.
FINRA is proposing to eliminate the current registration categories of Order Processing Assistant Representative, Options Representative, Corporate Securities Representative, Government Securities Representative, and Foreign Associate as set forth in NASD Rules 1041, 1032(d), 1032(e), 1032(g), and 1100.
Proposed Rule 1220.06 provides that, subject to the lapse of registration provisions in proposed Rule 1210.08, individuals who are registered as Order Processing Assistant Representatives, United Kingdom Securities Representatives, Canada Securities Representatives, Options Representatives, Corporate Securities Representatives, or Government Securities Representatives on the effective date of the proposed rule change and individuals who had been registered in such categories within the past two years before the effective date of the proposed rule change would be eligible to maintain their registrations with FINRA. However, if individuals registered in these categories terminate their registration with FINRA and the registration remains terminated for two or more years, they would not be able to re-register in that category.
With respect to Foreign Associates, proposed Rule 1220.06 provides that individuals registered as Foreign Associates on the effective date of the proposed rule change would also be eligible to maintain their registrations with FINRA. However, if Foreign Associates subsequently terminate their registrations with FINRA, they would not be able to re-register as Foreign Associates. FINRA states that, unlike the other categories being eliminated, Foreign Associates would not be eligible to re-register in the same category within two years of terminating their registrations because the two-year lapse of registration provision is only applicable to those registration categories that have an associated qualification exam.
Proposed Rule 1230 provides that the following persons associated with a member are not required to be registered: (i) Persons associated with a member whose functions are solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial; and (ii) persons associated with a member whose functions are related solely and exclusively to: (a) Effecting transactions on the floor of a national securities exchange and who are appropriately registered with such exchange; (b) transactions in municipal securities; (c) transactions in commodities; or (d) transactions in security futures, provided that any such person is registered with a registered futures association.
Proposed Rule 1230.01 provides that: (i) The function of accepting customer orders is not considered a clerical or ministerial function; (ii) each person associated with a member who accepts customer orders under any circumstances shall be registered in an appropriate registration category pursuant to proposed Rule 1220; and (iii) an associated person shall not be considered to be accepting a customer order where occasionally, when an appropriately registered person is unavailable, the associated person transcribes order details submitted by a customer and the registered person contacts the customer to confirm the order details before entering the order.
FINRA is proposing to rescind the guidance provided in
As discussed above, Rule 1250 includes a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element of CE.
The Regulatory Element of CE currently applies to registered persons and consists of periodic computer-based training on regulatory, compliance, ethical, supervisory subjects and sales practice standards.
Consistent with proposed Rule 1210.09, the term “covered person” would include any person designated as eligible for waiver pursuant to the rule. Proposed Rule 1240(a) provides that the content of the Regulatory Element for a person designated as eligible for a waiver pursuant to proposed Rule 1210.09 shall be determined based on the person's most recent registration status, and the Regulatory Element shall be completed based on the same cycle had the person remained registered. Proposed Rule 1240(a) further provides that if a person designated as eligible for a waiver fails to complete the Regulatory Element within the prescribed time frames, the person shall no longer be eligible for a waiver.
FINRA is proposing to codify existing guidance regarding the effect of failing to complete the Regulatory Element on a registered person's activities and compensation.
The Firm Element consists of at least annual, member-developed and administered training programs designed to keep covered registered persons current regarding securities products, services, and strategies offered by the member.
The Commission received eighteen comment letters on the proposal.
One commenter generally supports the proposed restructuring of the representative-level qualification exams, but does not support the proposed permissive registration regime set forth in the proposal.
In response, FINRA states that its current rule allows firms to permissively register associated persons who perform legal, compliance, internal audit, and back-office operations or who have similar responsibilities; that the proposed rule would allow firms to register other associated persons, such as those working in accounting or technology, regardless of their job function; and that FINRA does not believe that there is any meaningful distinction between the current categories of associated persons and other categories of associated persons for purposes of permissive registration.
In response to this commenter's concern that the proposal could result in potentially unqualified individuals acting in registered capacities, FINRA provides two examples to illustrate that the proposed permissive registration regime should not result in unqualified individuals acting in registered capacities any more so than does allowing individuals who just entered the securities industry and passed the requisite examinations to serve in registered capacities.
One commenter supports the permissive registration rules and opening the SIE up to the public but believes that the new rules and categories of registration are not necessarily an improvement over the current exam structure and that the time and effort spent by FINRA and firms to comply with the new rules can be better spent on other projects.
This commenter also stated that FINRA should delay restructuring of representative-level exams until it determines whether a similar restructuring is feasible for principal-level exams.
In addition, this commenter believes that the financial services affiliate waiver process set forth in proposed Rule 1210.09 is overly complex and difficult to understand and it is hard to determine what its effect will be.
Finally, this commenter notes that FINRA has not provided a cost estimate for the SIE and states that it cannot provide thoughtful comment without such an estimate.
Two commenters believe that the proposed supervisory requirements relating to permissive registrants are overly burdensome and should be amended to allow a permissively registered principal to be supervised by a registered representative or a registered principal.
One commenter recommends that more specific guidance be provided with respect to supervisory obligations of permissively registered individuals and believes that proposed Rule 1210.02, which states that all permissively registered individuals are subject to all FINRA rules, to the extent relevant to their activities, is both under- and over-inclusive.
Four commenters suggest that FINRA remove or shorten the requirement that registered representatives designated to function as principals for a limited period before passing a principal qualification exam have 18 months of registered representative experience within the previous five year period.
One commenter requests that FINRA eliminate the proposed 180-day waiting period for taking an exam imposed on individuals who fail an exam three or more times in succession within a two-year period, and suggests various alternatives.
A number of commenters suggest that FINRA amend the proposal to align the expiration periods for the SIE, representative-level registrations, and principal-level registrations to make them all be four years.
In response, FINRA states that it continues to believe that the SIE should be subject to a four-year expiration period given that, among other things, some of the individuals who pass the SIE may not have any exposure to the investment banking or securities business until they associate with a member, individuals who only pass the SIE would not be required to satisfy CE requirements, and the knowledge tested on the SIE is not static.
A number of commenters suggest that FINRA clarify and/or amend certain aspects of the financial services affiliate waiver set forth in proposed Rule 1210.09. Three commenters argue that the requirement that an individual be registered during five of the previous ten years is overly burdensome and should be revised.
One commenter requests that FINRA provide a waiver “claw back” period to allow individuals who were terminated from a firm within two years of the proposal's approval date, and who meet the eligibility requirements, to be eligible for a waiver.
One commenter suggests that individuals designated as eligible for the financial services affiliate waiver be placed on inactive status rather than have their registrations terminated, so that they could be tracked through CRD and FINRA could provide information to the public through BrokerCheck.
One commenter asked whether individuals designated under the waiver provision would be subject to FINRA's regulatory requirements and further stated that the proposed rule should require such individuals to attend annual compliance meetings and complete the Firm Element of CE.
One commenter requests that FINRA clarify the process for designating an individual for the waiver, and argues that the designation process could be simplified by relying on the CRD system to accept and maintain the designation.
One commenter states that individuals should not be disqualified from the waiver due to “pending or adverse regulatory matters,” but only as a result of “regulatory findings.”
Two commenters suggest that FINRA change the financial services affiliate waiver acronym from “FSA” to something else in order to avoid confusion.
Three commenters suggest that, following the effectiveness of the proposal, FINRA monitor the waiver program and maintain a dialog with members to make sure it is operating as intended.
Two commenters request that FINRA clarify the registration requirements for Principal Financial Officers and Principal Operations Officers, including whether such designated individuals will continue to be exempt from the Operations Professional (Series 99) qualification exam.
Six commenters state that the proposed implementation date set forth in the Notice of March 2018 is not appropriate and suggest FINRA allow more time for firms to implement the proposed rule change.
Nine commenters request that FINRA and the Commission recognize the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) program and the CFA charter as an alternative means of qualifying individuals for FINRA representative-level registrations.
Two commenters state that the broker-dealer registration rules, as amended by FINRA's proposal, should be harmonized across regulators.
One commenter requests that FINRA clarify whether it will provide actual scores for the SIE to candidates.
One commenter notes its concern that bad actors who take the SIE may hold themselves out as licensed professionals to defraud investors, and encourages
One commenter makes several additional suggestions relating to FINRA's registration rules and processes, including that FINRA: (i) Modify the General Securities Principal exam content to eliminate product scope limitations; (ii) establish reciprocity with the New York Stock Exchange with respect to Chief Compliance Officer exams; (iii) keep certain registration categories that are being eliminated as qualifying prerequisites for other registration categories; and (iv) work with other regulators to minimize multiple registration categories related to a single exam in order to simplify Section 4 of the Form U4.
After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment letters and the FINRA Response Letter, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities association.
FINRA states that, as part of the process of developing the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, FINRA undertook a review of the NASD registration rules and the Incorporated NYSE rules relating to registration to update the rules and eliminate duplicative, obsolete, or superfluous provisions, and the proposed consolidated registration rules are the result of that process.
FINRA states that it also reviewed its representative-level examination program and determined to enhance the overall efficiency of the program by eliminating redundancy of subject matter content across examinations, retiring several outdated representative-level registrations, and introducing a general knowledge examination that could be taken by all potential representative-level registrants and the general public.
The Commission notes that one commenter is concerned that proposed Rule 1210.02, which would expand the scope of permissive registrations, could, among other things, result in potentially unqualified individuals acting in registered capacities.
In addition, a number of commenters were concerned with various aspects of the proposal to provide a waiver process for individuals working for a financial services industry affiliate of a member.
FINRA states that the proposed rule change will make the qualification and registration process more effective and efficient, without affecting the proficiency required to function as a representative or principal or reducing investor protection.
The Exchange Act authorizes FINRA to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence for persons associated with FINRA members.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4315-DR); dated 05/26/2017.
Effective 07/07/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 05/26/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and an extension of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than September 11, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
1. Statement of Marital Relationship (By One of the Parties)—20 CFR 404.726—0960-0038. SSA must obtain a signed statement from a spousal
2. Workers' Compensation/Public Disability Questionnaire—20 CFR 404.408—0960-0247. Section 224 of the Social Security Act (Act) provides for the reduction of disability insurance benefits (DIB) when the combination of DIB and any workers' compensation (WC) or certain Federal, State or local public disability benefits (PDB) exceeds 80 percent of the worker's pre-disability earnings. SSA field office staff conducts face-to-face interviews with applicants using the electronic SSA-546 WC/PDB screens in the Modernized Claims System (MCS) to determine if the worker's receipt of WC or PDB payments will cause a reduction of DIB. The respondents are applicants for the Title II DIB.
3. Medicaid Use Report—20 CFR 416.268—0960-0267. Section 20 CFR 416.268 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires SSA to determine eligibility for: (1) Special SSI cash payments and, (2) special SSI eligibility status for a person who works despite a disabling condition. It also provides that, to qualify for special SSI eligibility status, an individual must establish that termination of eligibility for benefits under Title XIX of the Act would seriously inhibit the ability to continue employment. SSA employees collect the information this regulation requires from respondents during a personal interview. We then use this information to determine if an individual is entitled to special Title XVI SSI payments and, consequently, to Medicaid. The respondents are SSI recipients for whom SSA has stopped payments based on earnings.
4. Medicare Subsidy Quality Review Forms—20 CFR 418(b)(5)—0960-0707. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 mandated the creation of the Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage program, and provides certain subsidies for eligible Medicare beneficiaries to help pay for the cost of prescription drugs. As part of its stewardship duties of the Medicare Part D subsidy program, SSA must conduct periodic quality review checks of the information Medicare beneficiaries report on their subsidy applications (Form SSA-1020). SSA uses the Medicare Quality Review program to conduct these checks. The respondents are applicants for the Medicare Part D subsidy whom SSA chose to undergo a quality review.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than August 14, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
1. myWageReport—0960-NEW.
SSA is creating a new electronic wage reporting application, myWageReport.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries receive payments based on their ability to engage in substantial gainful activity because of a physical or mental condition. SSA requires SSDI beneficiaries or their representative payees to report when beneficiaries return to work, when their amount of work increases, or when their earnings increase. Currently, SSDI beneficiaries can call our 800 number; visit a local field office (FO); or mail paystubs and earnings to their local field offices to report this information.
Section 826 of the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2015, Pub.L. 114-74, requires SSA to offer SSDI beneficiaries the same electronic/automated receipt wage reporting methods available to Supplemental Security Income recipients, including the Internet. Accordingly, we are creating a new Internet reporting system for this purpose, myWageReport.
The myWageReport application will enable SSDI beneficiaries and representative payees to report earnings electronically. It will also generate a receipt for the beneficiary and/or representative payee, thus providing confirmation that SSA has received the earnings report.
SSA will screen the information submitted through the myWageReport application and will determine if we need additional employment information. If so, agency personnel will reach out to beneficiaries or their representative payees and will use Form SSA-821, Work Activity Report (0960-0059), to collect the additional required information.
The respondents for this collection are SSDI recipients or their representative payees.
2. RS/DI Quality Review Case Analysis: Sampled Number Holder; Auxiliaries/Survivors; Parent; and Stewardship Annual Earnings Test—0960-0189. Section 205(a) of the Act authorizes the Commissioner of SSA to conduct the quality review process, which entails collecting information related to the accuracy of payments made under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program (OASDI). Sections 228(a)(3), 1614(a)(1)(B), and 1836(2) of the Act require a determination of the citizenship or alien status of the beneficiary; this is only one item that we might question as part of the Annual Quality review. SSA uses Forms SSA-2930, SSA-2931, and SSA-2932 to establish a national payment accuracy rate for all cases in payment status, and to serve as a source of information regarding problem areas in the Retirement Survivors Insurance (RSI) and Disability Insurance (DI) programs. We also use the information to measure the accuracy rate for newly adjudicated RSI or DI cases. SSA uses Form SSA-4659 to evaluate the effectiveness of the annual earnings test, and to use the results in developing ongoing improvements in the process. About twenty-five percent of respondents will have in-person reviews and receive one of the following appointment letters: (1) SSA-L8550-U3 (Appointment Letter—Sample Individual); (2) SSA-L8551-U3 (Appointment Letter—Sample Family); or (3) the SSA-L8552-U3 (Appointment Letter—Rep Payee). Seventy-five percent of respondents will receive a notice for a telephone review using the SSA-L8553-U3 (Beneficiary Telephone Contact) or the SSA-L8554-U3 (Rep Payee Telephone Contact). To help the beneficiary prepare for the interview, we include three forms with each notice: (1) SSA-85 (Information Needed to Review Your Social Security Claim) lists the information the beneficiary will need to gather for the interview; (2) SSA-2935 (Authorization to the Social Security Administration to Obtain Personal Information) verifies the beneficiary's correct payment amount, if necessary; and (3) SSA-8552 (Interview Confirmation) confirms or reschedules the interview if necessary. The respondents are a statistically valid sample of all OASDI beneficiaries in current pay status or their representative payees.
3. Objection to Appearing by Video Teleconferencing; Acknowledgement of Receipt (Notice of Hearing); Waiver of Written Notice of Hearing—20 CFR 404.935, 404.936; 404.938, 404.939, 416.1435, 416.1436, 416.1438, & 416.1439—0960-0671. SSA uses the information we obtain on Forms HA-55, HA-504, HA-504-OP1, HA-510, and HA-510-OP1 to manage the means by which we conduct hearings before an administrative law judge (ALJ), and the scheduling of hearings with an ALJ. We use the HA-55, Objection to Appearing by Video Teleconferencing, and its accompanying cover letter, HA-L2, to allow claimants to opt-out of an appearance via video teleconferencing (VTC) for their hearing with an ALJ. The HA-L2 explains the good cause stipulation for opting out of VTC if the claimant misses their window to submit the HA-55, and for verifying a new residence address if the claimant moved since submitting their initial hearing request. SSA uses the HA-504 and HA-504-OP1, Acknowledgement of Receipt (Notice of Hearing), and accompanying cover letter, HA-L83 to: (1) Acknowledge the claimants will appear for their hearing with an ALJ; (2) establish the time and place of the hearing; and (3) remind claimants to gather evidence in support of their claims. The only difference between the two versions of the HA-504 is the language used for the selection check boxes as determined by the type of appearance for the hearing (in-person, phone teleconference, or VTC). In addition, the cover letter, HA-L83, explains: (1) The claimants' need to notify SSA of their wish to object to the time and place set for the hearing; (2) the good cause stipulation for missing the deadline for objecting to the time and place of the hearing; and (3) how the claimants can submit, in writing, any additional evidence they would like the ALJ to consider, or any objections they have on their claims. The HA-510, and HA-510-OP1, Waiver of Written Notice of Hearing, allows the claimants to waive their right to receive the Notice of Hearing as specified in the HA-L83. We typically use these forms when there is a last minute available opening on an ALJ's schedule, so the claimants can fill in the available time slot. If the claimants agree to fill the time slot, we ask them to waive their right to receive the Notice of Hearing. We use the HA-510-OP1 at the beginning of our process for representatives and claimants who wish to waive the 75-day requirement earlier in the process, and the HA-510 later in the process for those representatives and claimants who want the full 75 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The respondents are applicants for Social Security disability payments who request a hearing to appeal an unfavorable entitlement or eligibility determination.
4. Social Security's Public Credentialing and Authentication Process—20 CFR 401.45 and 402—0960-0789.
Authentication is the foundation for secure, online transactions. Identity authentication is the process of determining, with confidence, that someone is who he or she claims to be during a remote, automated session. It comprises three distinct factors: something you know; something you
SSA offers consistent authentication across SSA's secured online services. We allow our users to request and maintain only one User ID, consisting of a self-selected username and password, to access multiple Social Security electronic services. Designed in accordance with the OMB Memorandum M-04-04 and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-63, this process provides the means of authenticating users of our secured electronic services and streamlines access to those services.
SSA's public credentialing and authentication process:
• Issues a single User ID to anyone who wants to do business with the agency and meets the eligibility criteria;
• Partners with an external Identity Services Provider (ISP) to help us verify the identity of our online customers;
• Complies with relevant standards;
• Offers access to some of SSA's heaviest, but more sensitive, workloads online while providing a high level of confidence in the identity of the person requesting access to these services;
• Offers an in-person process for those who are uncomfortable with or unable to use the Internet process;
• Balances security with ease of use; and
• Provides a user-friendly way for the public to conduct extended business with us online instead of visiting local servicing offices or requesting information over the phone. Individuals have real-time access to their Social Security information in a safe and secure web environment.
We collect and maintain the users' personally identifiable information (PII) in our Central Repository of Electronic Authentication Data Master File Privacy Act system of records, which we published in the
We retain the data necessary to administer and maintain our e-Authentication infrastructure. This includes management and profile information, such as blocked accounts; failed access data; effective date of passwords; and other data allowing us to evaluate the system's effectiveness. The data we maintain also may include archived transaction data and historical data.
We use the information from this collection to identity proof and authenticate our users online, and to allow them access to their personal information from our records. We also use this information to provide second factor authentication. We are committed to expanding and improving this process so we can grant access to additional online services in the future.
Offering online services is not only an important part of meeting SSA's goals, but is vital to good public service. In increasing numbers, the public expects to conduct complex business over the Internet. Ensuring SSA's online services are both secure and user-friendly is our priority. We awarded a competitively bid contract to an ISP, Equifax,
We remain committed to enhancing our online services using authentication processes that balance usability and security. We will continue to research and develop new authentication tools while monitoring the emerging threats.
The following are key components of our authentication strategy:
• Enrollment and Identity Verification—Individuals who meet the following eligibility requirements may enroll:
○ Must have a valid email address;
○ Must have a valid Social Security number (SSN);
○ Must have a domestic address of record (includes military addresses); and
○ Must be at least 18 years of age.
We collect identifying data and use SSA and ISP records to verify an individual's identity. Individuals have the option of obtaining an enhanced, stronger, User ID by providing certain financial information (
• Establishing the User Profile—The individual self-selects a username and password, both of which can be of variable length and alphanumeric. We provide a password strength indicator to help the individual select a strong password. We also ask the individual to choose challenge questions for use in restoring a lost or forgotten username or password.
• Provide a Second Factor—We ask the individual to provide a text message enabled cell phone number or an email address. We consider the cell phone number or email address the second factor of authentication. We send a security code to the individual's selected second factor. We require the individual to confirm its receipt by entering the security code online. Subsequently, each time the individual attempts to sign in to his or her online account, we will also send a message with a one-time security code to the individual's selected second factor. The individual must enter the security code along with his or her username and password. The code is valid for only 10 minutes. If the individual does not enter the code within 10 minutes, the code expires, and the individual must request another code.
• Enhancing the User ID—If individuals opt to enhance or upgrade their User IDs, they must provide certain financial information for verification. We mail a one-time-use upgrade code to the individual's verified residential address. When the individual receives the upgrade code in the mail, he or she can enter this code online to enhance the security of the account. With extra security, we continue to require the individuals to sign in using their username, password, and a one-time security code we send to their second factor email address or cell phone number (whichever the users listed in their account).
• Sign in and Use—Our authentication process provides an individual with a User ID for access to our sensitive online Social Security services. Second factor authentication requires the individual to sign in with a username, password, and a one-time
The enrollment process is a one-time only activity. SSA requires the individuals to agree to the “Terms of Service” detailed on our Web site before we allow them to begin the enrollment process. The “Terms of Service” inform the individuals what we will and will not do with their personal information, and the privacy and security protections we provide on all data we collect. These terms also detail the consequences of misusing this service.
To verify the individual's identity, we ask the individual to give us minimal personal information, which may include:
• Name;
• SSN;
• Date of birth;
• Address—mailing and residential;
• Telephone number;
• Email address;
• Financial information;
• Cell phone number; and
• Selecting and answering password reset questions.
We send a subset of this information to the ISP, who then generates a series of out-of-wallet questions back to the individual. The individual must answer all or most of the questions correctly before continuing in the process. The exact questions generated are unique to each individual. This collection of information, or a subset of it, is mandatory for respondents who want to do business with SSA via the Internet. We collect this information via the Internet, on SSA's public-facing Web site. We also offer an in-person identification verification process for individuals who cannot, or are not willing, to register online. For this process, the individual must go to a local SSA field office and provide identifying information. We do not ask for financial information with the in-person process.
We only collect the identity information one time, when the individual registers for a credential. We ask for the User ID (username and password),and we send a security code to the individual's registered second factor (cell phone or email), for every sign in. The individual is required to provide the security code back to us during the online registration and sign in processes, for both standard accounts and accounts with extra security. The respondents are individuals who choose to use the Internet or Automated Telephone Response System to conduct business with SSA.
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, gives notice of a public meeting to discuss a draft Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(b) of The Hague Abduction Convention. The public meeting will take place on August 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. EDT. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
At its 2012 annual meeting, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law established a Working Group to develop a Guide to Good Practice on the application of Article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Conference has provided a draft text, which is available at
The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain the views of concerned stakeholders on the draft Guide to Good Practice. Those who cannot attend but wish to comment are welcome to do so by email to Michael Coffee at
You must notify
Data from the public is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), as amended; Public Law 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act); and Executive Order 13356. The purpose of the collection is to validate the identity of individuals who enter Department facilities.
The data will be entered into the Visitor Access Control System (VACS-D) database. Please see the Security Records System of Records Notice (State-36) at
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board (PRB) and Executive Resources Board (ERB) Membership.
If you have any questions, please contact Teresa Schlee at
Effective immediately, the membership of the PRB and ERB is as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before August 2, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0635 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 2, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0285 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Julia Greenway (202) 267-3896, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by Akron-Canton Airport. On July 22, 2016, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by Akron-Canton Airport Authority were in compliance with applicable requirements. On January 13, 2017 the FAA approved the Akron-Canton Airport noise compatibility program. All of the recommendations of the program were approved. No program elements relating to new or revised flight procedures for noise abatement were proposed by the airport operator.
Ms. Katherine Delaney, Community Planner, DET ADO 604, Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174. Telephone number: (734) 229-2900. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Akron-Canton Airport, effective January 13, 2017.
Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations:
a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of Part 150;
b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in Part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required. Prior to an FAA decision on a request to implement the action, an environmental review of the proposed action may be required. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA under applicable law contained in Title 49 U.S.C. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Detroit Airports District Office in Romulus, MI.
The Akron-Canton Airport study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from 2016 to the year 2019 (or beyond). It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise
The submitted program contained twenty-six proposed actions for noise abatement, noise mitigation, land use planning, and program management on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program was approved by the FAA, effective January 13, 2017.
Outright approval was granted for thirteen specific program measures. Thirteen measures were either identified as completed, no longer applicable, or to be discontinued.
These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval signed by the Great Lakes Region Airports Division Director on January 13, 2017. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the Akron-Canton Airport Authority, 5400 Lauby Road, North Canton, OH 44720. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments; correction.
FMCSA published a notice in the
Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2017.
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: (614) 942-6477. Email:
1. In the
2. In the
3. In the
4. In the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the renewal Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describe the information collections and their expected burden. On March 14, 2017, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2017.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132). These telephone numbers are not toll free.
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On March 14, 2017, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is
The summaries below describe the ICRs and their expected burden. FRA is submitting the renewal requests for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice.
We must receive your written comments on or before September 11, 2017.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “Regulations.gov” online comment form for this document, or you may send written comments via U.S. mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer accepts public comments via email or fax.
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB-2017-0003 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 453-1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of a continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in comments.
For each information collection listed below, we invite comments on: (a) Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following information collections (forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires):
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms (“Committee”) will convene a meeting on Friday, July 28, 2017, in the Cash Room, Room 2121, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220, from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting is open to the public, and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The meeting will be held on Friday, July 28, 2017, from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Committee meeting will be held in Room 2121 (Cash Room), Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20220. The meeting will be open to the public. Because the meeting will be held in a secured facility, members of the public who plan to attend the meeting must either:
1.
(
2. Contact the Federal Insurance Office at (202) 622-3220, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 21, 2017, and provide registration information.
Lindsey Baldwin, Senior Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 1410 MT, Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-3220 (this is not a
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102-3.150.
• Send electronic comments to
• Send paper statements in triplicate to the Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 1410 MT, Washington, DC 20220.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning July 1, 2017, and ending on September 30, 2017, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 0.92 per centum per annum.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328. You can download this notice at the following Internet addresses:
Effective July 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017.
Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less than zero. [FR Doc. 2015-18545] In addition to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b—Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on the TreasuryDirect Web site.
Center for Verification and Evaluation, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 11, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Terrence Moultrie at (202) 461-4300 or FAX (202) 495-5805.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is
With respect to the following collection of information, CVE invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of CVE's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of CVE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
By direction of the Secretary.
| 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 |