Page Range | 33439-33773 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 33773 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations | |
82 FR 33769 - Made in America Day and Made in America Week, 2017 | |
82 FR 33495 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 33514 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 33521 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science Board | |
82 FR 33476 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33487 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Quick Response Information System (QRIS) 2017-2020 System Clearance | |
82 FR 33451 - Safety Zone; Marine City Maritime Festival Water Ski Show, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI | |
82 FR 33517 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Request for Registration Under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962 | |
82 FR 33471 - Air Plan Approval; ME; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report | |
82 FR 33449 - Security Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Ft. Lauderdale, FL | |
82 FR 33521 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 33496 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
82 FR 33485 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 33482 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings | |
82 FR 33483 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 33483 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting (Webinar) | |
82 FR 33484 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
82 FR 33481 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
82 FR 33551 - Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
82 FR 33547 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
82 FR 33546 - Mack Trucks, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
82 FR 33549 - Volvo Trucks North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
82 FR 33550 - Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 33496 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 33518 - Records Management; General Records Schedule (GRS); GRS Transmittal 28 | |
82 FR 33485 - Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 7,179,464; Benralizumab | |
82 FR 33492 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 33490 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
82 FR 33494 - Grand River Dam Authority: Notice of Application for Temporary Variance and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
82 FR 33494 - Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; FLNG Liquefaction 4, LLC; Notice of Applications | |
82 FR 33489 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gulf Connector Expansion Project | |
82 FR 33490 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC Form No. 2 and FERC Form No. 2-A); Comment Request | |
82 FR 33488 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity | |
82 FR 33453 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
82 FR 33516 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Wireless Industrial Technology Konsortium, Inc. | |
82 FR 33521 - Waste Control Specialists LLC's Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project | |
82 FR 33516 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Hedge IV | |
82 FR 33517 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. | |
82 FR 33516 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. | |
82 FR 33482 - United States Global Change Research Program | |
82 FR 33479 - Notice of Public Meetings of the New York Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 33479 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 33470 - United States Army, Corps of Engineers; Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force, Review of Existing Rules | |
82 FR 33448 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chambers Creek, Steilacoom, WA | |
82 FR 33481 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Summer Flounder Fishery | |
82 FR 33485 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; CNCS Grant Application; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33511 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Archeology Permits and Reports | |
82 FR 33537 - Delegation of Authority to the Director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources To Concur in Assistance Programs | |
82 FR 33486 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 33539 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
82 FR 33455 - Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C) Temporary Increase in Institutional and Transactional Coverage Thresholds for Open-End Lines of Credit | |
82 FR 33554 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements | |
82 FR 33512 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, Fritch, TX; Correction | |
82 FR 33510 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/Washington | |
82 FR 33537 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Delirious: Art at the Limits of Reason, 1950-1980” Exhibition | |
82 FR 33520 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33467 - Return Due Date and Extended Due Date Changes | |
82 FR 33441 - Return Due Date and Extended Due Date Changes | |
82 FR 33507 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species | |
82 FR 33477 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33505 - Enhanced Drug Distribution Security Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Public Meetings; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 33497 - Pilot Project Program Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 33503 - Patient-Focused Drug Development for Hereditary Angioedema; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 33515 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
82 FR 33513 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation | |
82 FR 33517 - Notice of Filing of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
82 FR 33487 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Progress Reporting Form for the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (AIVRS) Program | |
82 FR 33525 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to BZX Rule 14.13, Company Listing Fees, To Amend the Fees Applicable to Securities Listed on the Exchange | |
82 FR 33527 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology | |
82 FR 33534 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Disapproving Proposed Rule Changes Amending Exchange Rule 104 To Delete Subsection (g)(i)(A)(III), Which Prohibits Designated Market Makers From Engaging in Transactions, During the Last Ten Minutes of Trading Before the Close, That Establish a New High (Low) Price for the Day on the Exchange in an Assigned Security in Which the DMM Has a Long (Short) Position | |
82 FR 33531 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make a Clarifying Amendment to IEX Rule 16.135 | |
82 FR 33530 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Re-Letter Rulebook Definition | |
82 FR 33529 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Outdated Language in the Exchange's Rulebook and Fee Schedule | |
82 FR 33523 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.38E To Specify the Ranking of an Odd Lot Order That Has a Display Price That Is Better Than Its Working Price | |
82 FR 33533 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange LLC; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Investors Exchange LLC; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; NASDAQ PHLX, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Changes To Eliminate Requirements That Will Be Duplicative of CAT | |
82 FR 33527 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees in Connection With the ISE System Migration | |
82 FR 33477 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33478 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33538 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
82 FR 33541 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Extension of Currently Approved Information Collection | |
82 FR 33540 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
82 FR 33509 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 33480 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Termination of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
82 FR 33465 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 33538 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Discontinuance Exemption-in Grundy County, IL | |
82 FR 33439 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell) Helicopters | |
82 FR 33542 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 33544 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
82 FR 33558 - Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs | |
82 FR 33726 - Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act | |
82 FR 33753 - Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
82 FR 33765 - Guidance To Assist Interested Persons in Developing and Submitting Draft Risk Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; Notice of Availability |
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Model 212 and Model 412 helicopters. This AD requires replacing certain oil and fuel check valves and prohibits installing them on any helicopter. This AD is prompted by a report of cracked or leaking check valves. These actions are intended to address an unsafe condition on these helicopters.
This AD becomes effective August 4, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 18, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280-3391; fax (817) 280-6466; or at
Jurgen E. Priester, Aviation Safety Engineer, Delegation Systems Certification Office, ASW-130, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5159; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
We are adopting a new AD for Bell Model 212 and Model 412 helicopters. This AD is prompted by a report that certain part numbered 209-062-520-001 check valves manufactured by Circor Aerospace as replacement parts have been found cracked or leaking on several Bell Model 427 and Model 429 helicopters. These check valves may be installed as engine oil check valves on Bell Model 212 helicopters. Similar check valves, part number 209-062-607-001, may be installed as fuel check valves on Bell Model 212 or 412 helicopters. These check valves may have a condition induced during assembly that can cause the valve body to crack, resulting in oil or fuel leakage. These suspect check valves are marked “Circle Seal” and were manufactured between October 2011 and March 2015. If not corrected, this condition could result in a crack, fuel or oil leakage, and subsequent failure of the engine or a fire and loss of control of the helicopter.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other helicopters of these same type designs.
We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 212-15-153, dated September 4, 2015 (212-15-153), and Bell ASB 212-15-155, dated September 15, 2015 (212-15-155), for Model 212 helicopters and Bell ASB 412-15-168, dated September 15, 2015 (412-15-168), for Model 412 helicopters. ASB 212-15-153 describes procedures for inspecting and replacing engine oil check valve part number (P/N) 209-062-520-001 installed on certain serial-numbered Model 212 helicopters. ASB 212-15-155 and ASB 412-15-168 describe procedures for inspecting and replacing fuel check valve P/N 209-062-607-001 installed on certain serial-numbered Model 212 and Model 412 helicopters.
This AD requires, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS), replacing the engine oil and fuel check valves.
This AD also prohibits installing a check valve P/N 209-062-520-001 or P/N 209-062-607-001 that was manufactured by Circor Aerospace, marked “Circle Seal,” and marked with a manufacturing date code of “10/11” (October 2011) through “03/15” (March 2015) on any helicopter.
The manufacturer's service information describes procedures for an inspection of the check valves within 25 hours TIS for a crack and allows 300 hours TIS to determine if the valve is affected and to replace any affected check valve. This AD requires replacing all affected check valves within 25 hours TIS.
We estimate that this AD affects 161 (59 Model 212 and 102 Model 412) helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85, replacing each check valve (engine oil or fuel) will require about 1 work-hour, and required parts will cost $85. For the Model 212, we estimate a total cost of $340 per helicopter and $20,060 for the U.S. fleet. For the Model 412, we estimate a total cost of $170 per helicopter and $17,340 for the U.S. fleet.
According to Bell's service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Bell. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 25 hours TIS, a very short interval for helicopters used in firefighting and logging operations.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by Reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Bell Model 212 and 412 helicopters, certificated in any category, with an engine oil check valve part number (P/N) 209-062-520-001 or fuel check valve P/N 209-062-607-001 manufactured by Circor Aerospace, marked “Circle Seal” and with a manufacturing date code of “10/11” (October 2011) through “03/15” (March 2015), installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a cracked or leaking check valve, which could result in loss of lubrication or fuel to the engine, failure of the engine or a fire, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective August 4, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 25 hours time-in-service:
(i) Replace each fuel check valve.
(ii) For Model 212 helicopters, replace each engine oil check valve.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any check valve P/N 209-062-520-001 or P/N 209-062-607-001 manufactured by Circor Aerospace, marked “Circle Seal” and with a manufacturing date code of “10/11” (October 2011) through “03/15” (March 2015), on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Delegation Systems Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Jurgen E. Priester, Aviation Safety Engineer, Delegation Systems Certification Office, ASW-130, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5159; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 212-15-153, dated September 4, 2015; Bell ASB 212-15-155, dated September 15, 2015; and Bell ASB 412-15-168, dated September 15, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone (817) 280-3391; fax (817) 280-6466; or at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Codes: 7900 Engine Oil System and 2800 Aircraft Fuel System.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains final and temporary regulations that update the due dates and extensions of time to file certain tax returns and information returns. The dates are updated to reflect the new statutory requirements set by section 2006 of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 and section 201 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. These regulations affect taxpayers who file Form W-2 (series, except Form W-2G), Form W-3, Form 990 (series), Form 1099-MISC, Form 1041, Form 1041-A, Form 1065, Form 1120 (series), Form 4720, Form 5227, Form 6069, Form 8804, or Form 8870.
Concerning these temporary regulations, Jonathan R. Black, (202) 317-6845; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
These updates to the regulations reflect changes in tax return due dates enacted by section 2006 of the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (the Surface Transportation Act), Public Law 114-41, 129 Stat. 443 (2015), as well as changes to information return due dates enacted by section 201 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), Public Law 114-113, Div. Q, 129 Stat. 2242 (2015).
Prior to amendment by the Surface Transportation Act, section 6072(a) provided that the income tax returns of partnerships (generally Form 1065, “U.S. Return of Partnership Income”), trusts and estates (generally Form 1041, “U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts”), and individuals (generally Form 1040, “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”) were due on the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year (April 15 for calendar-year taxpayers). Section 6072(b) generally provided that the income tax returns of corporations (most forms in the Form 1120 series) were due on the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year (March 15 for calendar-year taxpayers).
Under section 6081(a), the Secretary generally has authority to grant a reasonable extension of time of up to six months for filing any return, statement, or other document (longer in the case of taxpayers who are abroad). Additionally, prior to amendment by the Surface Transportation Act, section 6081(b) provided for a three-month automatic extension of time to file for all corporations.
Immediately prior to the enactment of the Surface Transportation Act, § 1.6081-2 provided an automatic five-month extension of time to file Form 1065 and Form 8804, “Annual Return for Partnership Withholding Tax (Section 1446),” § 1.6081-3 provided a six-month automatic extension of time to file the income tax return of all corporations (three months longer than the minimum three-month automatic extension), and § 1.6081-6 provided an automatic five-month extension of time to file Form 1041, such that the extended due date of these returns was the fifteenth day of the ninth month after the close of the taxable year (September 15 for calendar-year taxpayers). Section 1.6081-4 provided an automatic six-month extension of time to file individual income tax returns, such that the extended due date of an individual's return was the fifteenth day of the tenth month after the close of the taxable year (October 15 for calendar-year taxpayers).
The amendments to section 6072(b) of the Internal Revenue Code made by section 2006(a) of the Surface Transportation Act change the due date for filing an income tax return by a C corporation from the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year (March 15 for calendar-year taxpayers) to the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year (April 15 for calendar-year taxpayers). The amendments also change the due date for filing an income tax return by a partnership from the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year (April 15 for calendar-year taxpayers) to the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year (March 15 for calendar-year taxpayers). Generally these amendments apply to returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015. However, for any C corporation with a taxable year ending on June 30, these amendments apply to returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Section 2006(b) of the Surface Transportation Act provides that for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's designee, shall modify appropriate regulations regarding the due dates of certain returns and the maximum extensions of time to file certain returns, as specified in that section.
Section 2006(c) of the Surface Transportation Act generally changes the automatic extension of time to file the tax return of a C corporation provided by section 6081(b) from three months to six months. However, there are exceptions for C corporations with taxable years that begin before January 1, 2026. These statutory exceptions are (1) if a C corporation files for a calendar year, the automatic extension is five months; and (2) if the C corporation files
Prior to enactment of the PATH Act, the due dates for filing forms in the Form W-2 series, Form W-3, and Form 1099-MISC on paper were either February 28 or the last day of February of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information was being reported. See § 1.6041-2(a)(3)(ii) (Form W-2 not subject to FICA); § 31.6071(a)-1(a)(3)(i) (Form W-2 subject to FICA); and § 1.6041-6 (Form 1099-MISC). The due date for filing these information returns electronically was March 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information was being reported. See section 6071(b) prior to amendment by the PATH Act.
Section 201(a) and (c) of the PATH Act amended section 6071(b) and added new section 6071(c) to change the due date for information returns in the Form W-2 series, Form W-3, and “any returns or statements required by the Secretary to report nonemployee compensation.” Nonemployee compensation is currently reportable in box 7 of Form 1099-MISC. The amendments are effective for information returns for calendar years beginning after 2015. Under new section 6071(c), the new due date for returns in the Form W-2 series, Form W-3, and Forms 1099-MISC that report nonemployee compensation is January 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is being reported, regardless of whether the returns are filed on paper or electronically. The due date for information returns on Forms 1099-MISC that do not report nonemployee compensation remains unchanged.
These temporary regulations amend § 1.6072-2 to account for the due dates for the income tax returns of C corporations specified by section 2006(a) of the Surface Transportation Act. Under § 1.6072-2T, except in the case of a C corporation that has a taxable year that ends on June 30, the last date for filing the income tax return of a C corporation is the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year.
Additionally, § 1.6081-3T conforms to amended section 6081(b) by providing a seven-month automatic extension of time to file the income tax return of any C corporation with a taxable year that ends on June 30 and before January 1, 2026. Prior to the Surface Transportation Act and these temporary regulations, § 1.6081-3 relied on the Secretary's authority under section 6081(a) to provide for a six-month automatic extension of time to file for all corporations, despite section 6081(b) only requiring an automatic three-month extension. Similarly, these temporary regulations provide a six-month automatic extension of time to file a return for all corporations, except for C corporations that have a tax year that ends on June 30 and before January 1, 2026.
As a matter of administrative necessity, the return for a short period (within the meaning of section 443) that ends on any day in June is treated as if it is the return for a taxable year ending on June 30 for purposes of the last date for filing the income tax return of a C corporation under § 1.6072-2 and the duration of the extension of time to file the income tax return of a C corporation under § 1.6081-3.
Section 2006(b)(1) of the Surface Transportation Act specifies a maximum extension of time to file of six months for partnerships filing Form 1065. Accordingly, § 1.6081-2T provides that partnerships may obtain an automatic six-month extension of time to file Forms 1065 and 8804 if the partnership files an application in accordance with § 1.6081-2(b).
Section 2006(b)(2) of the Surface Transportation Act requires the Secretary to amend appropriate regulations to provide that the maximum extension of time for the returns of trusts filing Form 1041 is five and one-half months (ending on September 30 in the case of calendar-year filers). Section 1.6081-6(a)(1) provides an automatic five-month extension of time for a non-bankruptcy estate or a trust to file this return, provided that the estate or trust files an application in accordance with § 1.6081-6(b). To implement section 2006(b)(2) of the Surface Transportation Act and provide consistency for automatic extensions for non-bankruptcy estates and trusts filing Form 1041, § 1.6081-6T(a)(1) provides both non-bankruptcy estates and trusts an automatic five and one-half month extension of time to file a Form 1041, provided that the estate or trust files an application in accordance with § 1.6081-6(b). These regulations do not amend § 1.6081-6(a)(2), which addresses bankruptcy estates filing Form 1041.
Section 2006(b)(4) through (b)(8) of the Surface Transportation Act requires the Secretary to modify appropriate regulations to provide a maximum six-month automatic extension of time to file returns of tax exempt organizations that were eligible for an automatic extension under § 1.6081-9 (except Form 1041-A, “U.S. Information Return-Trust Accumulation of Charitable Amounts,” which section 2006 of the Surface Transportation Act does not address). These returns are those in the Form 990 series (Form 990, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” Form 990-BL, “Information and Initial Excise Tax Return for Black Lung Benefit Trusts and Certain Related Persons,” Form 990-EZ, “Short Form Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” Form 990-PF, “Return of Private Foundation,” and Form 990-T, “Exempt Organization Business Tax Return”), Form 4720, “Return of Certain Excise Taxes Under Chapters 41 and 42 of the Internal Revenue Code,” Form 5227, “Split-Interest Trust Information Return,” Form 6069, “Return of Excise Tax on Excess Contributions to Black Lung Benefit Trust Under Section 4953 and Computation of Section 192 Deduction,” and Form 8870, “Information Return for Transfers Associated With Certain Personal Benefit Contracts.”
Section 1.6081-9 provided a six-month automatic extension of time to file the Form 990-T, but provided only a three-month automatic extension of time to file the other forms (including the Form 1041-A). To implement the Surface Transportation Act and for consistency, § 1.6081-9T provides an automatic six-month extension of time to file all of these forms if the exempt organization files an application in accordance with § 1.6081-9(b).
Also, for administrative convenience and to provide filers of Form 1120-POL, “U.S. Tax Return for Certain Political Organizations,” with an automatic extension of time to file that is consistent with the automatic extension of time to file applicable to other exempt organization returns identified above, the automatic extension of time to file Form 1120-POL is removed from the forms eligible for an extension of time to file under § 1.6081-3 and added to the forms eligible for a six-month extension of time to file under § 1.6081-9T.
Section 2006(b)(3) of the Surface Transportation Act requires the Secretary to amend appropriate regulations to provide that the maximum extension for returns of employee benefit plans filing Form 5500, “Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan,” is an automatic three and one-half-month period (ending on November 15 in the case of calendar-year plans). Section 32104 of the FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), repealed section 2006(b)(3) of the Surface Transportation Act effective for returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, such that the provision never took effect. Currently, § 1.6081-11 provides a two and one-half month extension of time to file Form 5500 if the administrator or sponsor files an application in accordance with § 1.6081-11(b), and these regulations do not amend that provision.
Section 2006(b)(9) of the Surface Transportation Act requires the Secretary to provide that the due date for Form 3520-A , “Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust with a US Owner,” shall be the fifteenth day of the third month after the close of the trust's taxable year with a maximum extension of time to file of six months. Although § 404.6048-1(c)(1) provides that the due date of this return is the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year, the form's instructions currently provide that the due date of this return is the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year. Additionally, § 301.6081-2 provides for a six-month extension of time to file this return if the trust files an application in accordance with § 301.6081-2(b).
Section 2006(b)(10) of the Surface Transportation Act requires the Secretary to provide that the due date for Form 3520, “Annual Return to Report Transactions with Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Foreign Gifts,” for calendar year filers shall be April 15 with a maximum extension of time to file of six months ending on October 15. The form's instructions currently provide that the due date of this return is the due date of the taxpayer's income tax return (in the case of a decedent, the decedent's estate and gift tax return), including any extension of time to file, and there are no regulations under section 6081 providing a separate extension of time to file this return. The due dates for the Forms 3520-A and 3520 and the extension of time to file the Form 3520 will be addressed in a separate regulations project. Therefore, these regulations do not affect Forms 3520-A and 3520.
Section 2006(b)(11) of the Surface Transportation Act requires that the Secretary provide a due date of April 15 with a maximum extension of time to file of six months, ending on October 15, and a provision for extension rules similar to those in § 1.6081-5 (extension of time to file and pay until June 15 if taxpayer is out of the country), for FinCEN Report 114, “Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts.” Further, for any taxpayer required to file this return for the first time, section 2006(b)(11) of the Surface Transportation Act provides that the Secretary may waive any penalty for failure to timely request an extension.
On March 10, 2016, FinCEN published a notice of proposed rulemaking to address the extension of time to file FinCEN Report 114 (81 FR 12613). Therefore, these regulations do not address FinCEN Report 114.
The filing date changes enacted by the Surface Transportation Act also indirectly affect various due dates and extended due dates that, although determined by section 6072, are often specified throughout Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations by cross-reference to, or by restating the dates in, section 6072 prior to amendment by the Surface Transportation Act. Examples of such regulations include §§ 1.170A-11, 1.316-1, 1.338-10, 1.367(a)-7, 1.381(c)(14)-1, 1.468A-4, 1.468B-2, 1.547-4, 1.563-1, 1.563-2, 1.921-2, 1.923-1T, 1.925(a)-1T, 1.927(b)-1T, 1.936-1, 1.1248(f)-3, 1.1446-6, 1.6425-1, 1.6655-1, and 1.6655-7. Because the Treasury Department must prioritize limited resources, these regulations generally do not make amendments to update, conform, or clarify the due dates and extended due dates referenced in such sections. To the extent that any existing regulations (including examples) are not consistent with the due dates specified by section 6072 (as amended by the Surface Transportation Act), the statutory due dates control. If resources permit, the Treasury Department and the IRS will update outdated examples and regulatory text through future guidance projects. In the meantime, taxpayers should refer to the relevant form instructions for guidance.
These regulations also include some changes that correct minor typographical errors or make clarifications or updates. The period of underpayment of estimated tax by a corporation under section 6655 for the section 1446 withholding tax described in § 1.1446-3(b)(2)(v)(C) is administratively tied to the due date of Form 8804. These regulations therefore revise § 1.1446-3(b)(2)(v)(C) to update the period of underpayment for the section 1446 withholding tax. Additionally, the due date for returns of banks with respect to common trust funds, commonly filed on Form 1065, is administratively tied to the due date of Form 1065, so these regulations update § 1.6032-1 to clarify that the due date for these returns has changed. Similarly, the annual return filed by a religious or apostolic association or corporation on Form 1065 is to be filed on the due date of a partnership return under section 6072(b), so these regulations update § 1.6033-2(e) to clarify that the due date for these returns has changed.
These regulations also contain conforming amendments to reflect that the due date for forms in the Form W-2 series, Form W-3, and Forms 1099-MISC that report nonemployee compensation is January 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is being reported, as enacted by section 201 of the PATH Act.
These regulations are generally applicable for returns filed on or after the date of publication of this Treasury Decision. Many of the amendments in these regulations, however, reflect statutory changes that were effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, and those statutory changes, described in the background section of this preamble, supersede regulations that are amended by this Treasury Decision. Additionally, taxpayers may elect to apply these regulations to returns filed for periods beginning after December 31, 2015. The election is made by filing a return by the due date or extended due date specified in these regulations if that due date is later than the due date specified by regulations in effect at the time the return is filed.
Certain IRS regulations, including these regulations, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, please refer to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the
The principal author of these regulations is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 31 are amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3T(b)(2)(v)(C).
(g) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3T(g).
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3(a).
(b)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3(b)(1).
(2)(i) through (iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3(b)(2)(i) through (iv).
(v)(A) through (B) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3(b)(2)(v)(A) and (B).
(C)
(c) through (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1446-3(c) through (f).
(g)
(h)
(a) * * * (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6012-6T(a)(1).
(a)
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6012-6(a)(2).
(b) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6012-6(b).
(c)
(d)
(e) * * *
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6031(a)-1T(e)(2).
(a) through (d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6031(a)-1(a) through (d).
(e)(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6031(a)-1(e)(1).
(2)
(f)
(g)
[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6032-1T.
(a) Every bank (as defined in section 581) maintaining a common trust fund shall make a return of income of the common trust fund, regardless of the amount of its taxable income. Member banks of an affiliated group that serve as co-trustees with respect to a common trust fund must act jointly in making a return for the fund. If a bank maintains more than one common trust fund, a separate return shall be made for each. No particular form is prescribed for making the return under this section, but Form 1065 may be used if it is designated by the bank as the return of a common trust fund. The return shall be made for the taxable year of the common trust fund and shall be filed on or before the date prescribed by section 6072(b) with the service center prescribed in the relevant IRS revenue procedure, publication, form, or instructions to the form (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter). Such return shall state specifically with respect to the fund the items of gross income and the deductions allowed by subtitle A of the Code, shall include each participant's name and address, the participant's proportionate share of taxable income or net loss (exclusive of gains and losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets), the participant's proportionate share of gains and losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets,
(b) This section applies to returns filed on or after July 20, 2017. Section 1.6032-1 (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2017) applies to taxable years beginning before July 20, 2017.
(c) The applicability of this section will expire on or before July 17, 2020.
(e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6033-2T(e).
(a) through (d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6033-2(a) through (d).
(e)
(f) through (j) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6033-2(f) through (j).
(k)
(l)
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6041-2T(a)(3)(ii).
(a)(1) through (2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6041-2(a)(1) and (2).
(3)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6041-2(a)(3)(i).
(ii)
(b) through (c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6041-2(b) through (c).
(d)
(e)
[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6041-6T.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6072-2T(a).
(d) * * *
(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6072-2T(d)(1); and
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6072-2T(d)(2).
(a)
(ii)
(2)
(b) through (c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6072-2(b) and (c).
(d) introductory text [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6072-2(d) introductory text.
(1)
(2)
(e) through (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6072-2(e) and (f).
(g)
(h)
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-1T(a).
(a)
(b) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-1(b).
(c)
(d)
(a) * * * (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-2T(a)(1).
(a)
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-2(a)(2).
(b) through (g) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-2(b) through (g).
(h)
(i)
(a) introductory text [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-3T(a) introductory text.
(e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-3T(e).
(f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-3T(f).
(g)
(a)
(1) through (4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-3(a)(1) through (4).
(b) through (d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-3(b) through (d).
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a) * * *
(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-5T(a)(1);
(a) introductory text [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-5(a) introductory text.
(1) Partnerships, which are required under section 6072(b) to file returns on the fifteenth day of the third month following the close of the taxable year of the partnership, that keep their records and books of account outside the United States and Puerto Rico;
(2) through (6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-5(a)(2) through (6).
(b) through (e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-5(b) through (e).
(f) This section applies to returns filed on or after July 20, 2017. Section 1.6081-5 (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2017) applies to applications for an automatic extension of time to file returns before July 20, 2017.
(g) The applicability of this section will expire on or before July 17, 2020.
(a) * * * (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-6T(a)(1).
(a)
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-6(a)(2).
(b) through (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-6(b) through (f).
(g)
(h)
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9T(a).
(b) * * *
(1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9T(b)(1);
(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9T(b)(3); and
(c) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9T(c).
(d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9T(d).
(e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9T(e).
(a)
(b) introductory text [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9(b) introductory text.
(1) Be submitted on Form 7004, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File Certain Business Income Tax, Information, and Other Returns” (in the case of an extension of time to file Form 1120-POL), Form 8868, “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File an Exempt Organization Return” (in the case of an extension of time to file any other return listed in paragraph (a) of this section), or in any other manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner;
(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9(b)(2);
(3) Show the full amount properly estimated as tentative tax for the entity for the taxable year; and
(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6081-9(b)(4).
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 31.6071(a)-1T(a)(3).
(a)
(3)
(ii)
(b) through (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 31.6071(a)-1(b) through (f).
(g)
(h)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Chambers Creek Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad vertical lift railroad bridge across Chambers Creek, mile 0.01, near Steilacoom in Pierce County, WA. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule, for the second time within the past year, to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is appropriate.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on July 22, 2017 to 6 a.m. on January 16, 2018.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before January 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0695 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Danny McReynolds, Bridge Management Specialist, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7234, email
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, the bridge owner, is requesting to test a deviation to the schedule of the Chambers Creek BNSF railroad vertical lift railroad bridge across Chambers Creek, mile 0.01, near Steilacoom in Pierce County, WA. Due to minimal usage of the drawbridge between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., the bridge owner has requested to test this schedule to see if it better balances the needs of marine and rail traffic. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 10ft in the closed-to-navigation position and 50ft of vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position (reference plane is MHW elevation of 12.2 feet). The bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 117.5; which requires the bridge to open anytime when a request or signal to open is given.
The following facts support BNSF's proposal: (1) The previous test deviation from December 12, 2016 to Jun 23, 2017 had only one lift opening request (2) over the last 6 years only 2% of the subject bridge lifts have occurred between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., which equates to approximately 5 openings a year, (3) from February 2009 to June 2015 there were 1932 total openings of which only 40 occurred between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and (4) the navigation traffic consists primarily of the tenants of Chambers Bay marina (recreational users) that are members of the Chambers Bay Boating Association.
The Coast Guard is publishing this temporary deviation, for a second time within a year, to test the proposed schedule change to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is appropriate to better balance the needs of marine and rail traffic.
Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 6 a.m. on July 22, 2017 to 6 a.m. on January 15, 2017, the subject bridge shall open on signal, except from
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways of this temporary deviation through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners and through direct outreach with the Chambers Creek Boating Association so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass underneath the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean for a United States Navy exercise. There will be a zone approximately 4 nautical miles wide extending from .75 nautical miles off the beach to 4 nautical miles offshore. The zone will begin approximately .4 nautical miles south of Port Everglades Inlet. The security zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami.
This rule is effective without actual notice from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily from July 20, 2017 through July 21, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily from July 8, 2017 through July 20, 2017.
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Mara Brown, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-535-4317, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of this event until two days prior to the exercise and there is an immediate need to protect the security of the naval vessels, the public, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because the zone must be established by July 8, 2017.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Miami (COTP) has determined the potential security concerns associated with naval exercises starting July 8, 2017. This rule is needed to protect naval vessels, the public, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature while the exercise is occurring.
This rule establishes a security zone from 5 a.m. until 8 p.m. daily from July 8, 2017 through July 21, 2017, while the Navy is performing the exercise. The security zone will cover all navigable waters approximately in an area 4 nautical miles wide extending from .75 nautical miles off the beach to 4 nautical miles offshore. The zone will begin approximately .4 nautical miles south of Port Everglades Inlet. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining
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.
The Coast Guard has made a determination this rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, durations and location of the security zone. The zone is only 4 nautical miles wide extending from .75 nautical miles off the beach to 4 nautical miles offshore. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the security zone without significant diversion.
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 security 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 M16475.1D, 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 security zone that will prohibit entry within certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters while the exercise is occurring. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 2000-foot portion of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Marine City, MI. This zone is necessary to protect vessels from potential hazards associated with the Marine City Maritime Festival Water Ski Show.
This temporary final rule is effective from 10 a.m. though 5 p.m. on August 5, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this project until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.
We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
On August 5, 2017, a Maritime Festival Water Ski Show will take place on the St. Clair River in Marine City, MI. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that a potential hazard associated with this water ski show will be a safety concern to anyone within 2000-feet of the water ski area. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the show is being conducted.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 5, 2017. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, bound by: 200 feet seaward of latitude position 42°43.382′ N., and to the south by 2,000 feet to 200 feet seaward of latitude position 42°42.983′ N. This regulated area will be enforced during three 30 minute time periods between 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. on August 5, 2017. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The Captain of the Port Detroit or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at 313-568-9464. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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
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. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Recreational and commercial vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
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 7 hours that will prohibit entry within 2000-feet of the water ski show. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the 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) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the table in the amendment.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule with request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) proposes amendments to Regulation C that would, for a period of two years, increase the threshold for collecting and reporting data with respect to open-end lines of credit so that financial institutions originating fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the preceding two years would not be required to begin collecting such data until January 1, 2020.
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2017-0021 or RIN 3170-AA76, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Alexandra W. Reimelt, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, at 202-435-7700 or
Regulation C implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). For over four decades, HMDA has provided the public and public officials with information about mortgage lending activity within communities by requiring financial institutions to collect, report, and disclose certain data about their mortgage activities. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended HMDA and, among other things, expanded the scope of information that must be collected, reported, and disclosed under HMDA and transferred rule writing authority from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) to the Bureau.
In October 2015, the Bureau published a final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA (2015 HMDA Final Rule).
The Bureau has heard concerns that, in setting the open-end transactional coverage threshold at 100 transactions, the Bureau set it too low. The Bureau is now proposing to increase that threshold to 500 or more open-end lines of credit for two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019). During that period, the Bureau will reconsider the open-end transactional coverage threshold: This temporary increase would allow the Bureau to do so without requiring financial institutions originating fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit per year to collect and report data with respect to open-end lending in the meanwhile.
This proposal seeks comment on whether the Bureau should temporarily increase the threshold in this manner.
HMDA and its implementing regulation, Regulation C, require certain banks, savings associations, credit unions, and for-profit nondepository institutions to collect, report, and disclose data about originations and purchases of mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loan applications that do not result in originations (for example, applications that are denied or withdrawn). In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended HMDA and also transferred HMDA rulemaking authority and other functions from the Board to the Bureau.
In October 2015, the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, which implemented the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to HMDA.
Home-equity lines of credit were uncommon in the 1970s and early 1980s when Regulation C was first implemented. In 1988, the Board amended Regulation C to permit, but not require, financial institutions to report home-equity lines of credit that were for the purpose of home improvement or home purchase.
In 2000, in response to the increasing importance of open-end lending in the housing market, the Board proposed to revise Regulation C to require mandatory reporting of all home-equity lines of credit.
As discussed in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, open-end mortgage lending continued to increase in the years following the Board's 2002 final rule, particularly in areas with high home-price appreciation. Further, research indicates that speculative real estate investors used open-end, home-secured lines of credit to purchase non-owner occupied properties, which correlated with higher first-mortgage defaults and home-price depression during the financial crisis.
More generally, as the 2015 HMDA Final Rule also noted, dwelling-secured open-end lines of credit liquefy equity that borrowers have built up in their homes, which often are their most important assets, and increase their risk of losing their homes to foreclosure when property values decline.
To effectuate this decision, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule defined two new terms: “covered loan,” which is defined to mean “a closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit that is not an excluded transaction,”
In expanding coverage to include open-end lines of credit, the Bureau recognized that doing so would impose one-time and ongoing operational costs on reporting institutions; that the one-time costs of modifying processes and systems and training staff to begin open-end line of credit reporting likely would impose significant costs on some institutions; and that institutions' ongoing reporting costs would increase as a function of their open-end lending volume.
The Bureau sought to avoid imposing these costs on small institutions with limited open-end lending, where the benefits of reporting the data do not justify the costs of reporting.
With respect to open-end origination volume, the Bureau used multiple data sources, including credit union Call Reports, Call Reports for banks and thrifts, and data from the Bureau's Consumer Credit Panel to develop estimates for different potential thresholds.
The Bureau noted that expansions or contractions in the number of financial institutions, or changes in product offerings and demands during implementation could alter the estimated impacts.
To estimate the one-time and ongoing costs of collecting and reporting data under HMDA, the Bureau identified seven “dimensions” of compliance operations and used those to define three broadly representative financial institutions according to the overall level of complexity of their compliance operations: “tier 1” (high-complexity); “tier 2” (moderate-complexity); and “tier 3” (low-complexity).
With respect to one-time costs, the Bureau recognized that the one-time cost of reporting open-end lines of credit could be substantial because most financial institutions do not currently report open-end lines of credit and thus would have to develop completely new reporting infrastructures to begin reporting these data. As a result, there would be one-time costs to create processes and systems for open-end lines of credit in addition to the one-time costs to modify processes and systems for other mortgage products.
With respect to ongoing costs, the Bureau acknowledged that costs for open-end reporting vary by institutions due to many factors, such as size, operational structure, and product complexity, and that this variance exists on a continuum that was impossible to fully represent.
Drawing on all of these estimates, the Bureau decided to establish an open-end transactional coverage threshold that would require institutions that originate 100 or more open-end lines of credit to collect and report data. The Bureau estimated that this threshold would avoid imposing the burden of establishing open-end reporting on approximately 3,000 predominantly smaller-sized institutions with low open-end lending
To effectuate this decision, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule amended Regulation C to define two discrete thresholds that were intended to work in tandem. First, the rule established an institutional coverage threshold that limits the definition of “depository financial institution” and “nondepository financial institution” to include only those institutions that either originated at least 25 covered closed-end mortgages in each of the preceding years or that originated at least covered 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding years.
On April 13, 2017, the Bureau issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2017 HMDA Proposal) containing a set of proposed technical corrections and clarifying amendments to the Regulation C as amended by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
The 2017 HMDA Proposal noted that, under the institutional coverage threshold in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the definition of financial institution included only institutions that originate either 25 or more closed-end mortgage loans or 100 or more open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. That threshold and the transaction coverage threshold were intended to be complementary exclusions.
The 2017 HMDA Proposal sought comment on this and other proposed changes. The comment period closed on May 25, 2017. The Bureau is in the process of reviewing the comments and preparing a final rule, which the Bureau expects to issue on or before the date on which this proposal would be finalized. Accordingly, this proposal reflects the amended language of the 2017 HMDA Proposal.
Since the Bureau issued the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, many industry stakeholders have expressed concerns over the levels for the transactional coverage thresholds. The Bureau has sought to listen to and understand the basis for these concerns. In the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau modified Regulation C's institutional and transactional coverage to better achieve HMDA's purposes in light of current market conditions and to reduce unnecessary burden on financial institutions. The Bureau adopted uniform loan volume thresholds for depository and nondepository institutions. The loan volume thresholds require an institution that originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans or at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years to report HMDA data, provided that the institution meets all of the other criteria for institutional coverage.
As discussed above, the Bureau did not have robust data for making the estimates that went into establishing the open-end coverage threshold. The Bureau now has some reason to question whether it struck the appropriate balance in establishing a threshold of 100 open-end lines of credit.
In striking that balance, the Bureau estimated, based upon 2013 data, that under that threshold 749 depository institutions would be required to report their open-end lines of credit. Since 2013, the number of dwelling-secured open-end lines of credit originated has increased by 36 percent and continues to grow.
The data available to the Bureau with respect to open-end line of credit institutions by banks and thrifts is not sufficiently robust to allow the Bureau to estimate with any precision the number of such institutions that have crossed over the open-end transactional threshold in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. However, there is reliable data with respect to credit unions which are required to report open-end originations in their Call Reports. The Bureau's review of credit union Call Report data indicates that the number of credit unions that originated 100 or more open-end lines of credit in 2015 was up 31 percent over 2013.
Additionally, information received by the Bureau since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule has caused the Bureau to question its assumption, as set forth above, that low-complexity (tier 3) institutions process their home-equity lines of credit on the same data platforms as their closed-end mortgages, which in turn drove the Bureau's corresponding assumptions that the one-time costs for these institutions would be minimal. The Bureau has heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that one-time costs could be as high as $100,000 for tier 3 institutions. The Bureau likewise has heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that the ongoing costs for these institutions—which the Bureau estimated would be under $10,000 per year and add under $60 per line of credit—could be at least three times higher.
These reports, coupled with the additional evidence discussed above with respect to the number of institutions that would be covered by the open-end transactional coverage test contained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, have led the Bureau to believe that it is appropriate to seek comment to determine whether an adjustment in the threshold is appropriate. Although this could be accomplished by delaying the effective date for the reporting requirement for open-end lines of credit in toto, for the reasons set forth above and those articulated in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau continues to believe that it is vitally important to begin to collect data on the burgeoning market for home-equity lines of credit. Accordingly, in light of the considerations set forth above, the Bureau is proposing to increase temporarily the open-end transactional coverage threshold—and to make a parallel change in the institutional coverage threshold—so that institutions originating fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years will not be required to commence collecting or reporting data on their open-end lines of credit until the Bureau has the opportunity to reassess whether to adjust the threshold.
In developing a proposed temporary adjustment of the threshold, the Bureau has examined the coverage estimates contained in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, as well as the Bureau's analysis of more recent credit union Call Report data.
As shown above in Table 8 from the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau had estimated, using 2013 data, that a 500 line-of-credit threshold would have reduced the number of reporting institutions from 749 to 231, a 69 percent reduction, while reducing the share of lines of credit reported from 88 percent to 76 percent, a fourteen percent reduction.
The Bureau has considered, as an alternative, increasing the open-end transactional coverage threshold to 1,000. The Bureau estimates that there are approximately 110 depository institutions that originated between 500 and 1,000 open-end lines of credit in 2015.
Beyond that, the Bureau believes that institutions that have originated at least 500 dwelling-secured open-end lines of credit in each of the last two years—and that are averaging closer to 1,000 such lines—are, at a minimum, moderately-complex operations able to shoulder the costs of collecting and reporting data on their open-end lines of credit. For example, information supplied to the Bureau from the credit league of one State indicates that of the seven credit unions in that State that had originated more than 250 home-equity lines of credit in the first six months of 2016 (and thus were on track to originate 500 for the year), six had assets over $1 billion.
For all these reasons, the Bureau is proposing to amend the open-end transactional coverage threshold in Regulation C as adopted by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, effective January 1, 2018, to increase the threshold from 100 to 500 and is proposing to amend the threshold, effective January 1, 2020, to restore it to 100. The Bureau is proposing a parallel change in the institutional coverage threshold. The Bureau believes that this two-year period will give the Bureau sufficient time to assess whether the change being proposed should be made permanent or whether the threshold should be set at some lower level, and to finalize its determination in time to allow institutions who may be covered under the permanent threshold but not by the temporary threshold to complete their implementation process.
The Bureau seeks comment on whether to increase temporarily the open-end transactional coverage threshold and, if so, whether to raise the threshold to 500 or to a larger or smaller number. The Bureau also seeks comment on whether, if it elects to increase the open-end transactional coverage threshold, it should do so for a period of two years or a longer or shorter period of time.
The Bureau notes that it is not proposing to adjust the closed-end transactional coverage threshold. As explained above, in establishing that threshold the Bureau was able to base its determination on a robust dataset that enabled the Bureau to evaluate the implications of potential alternative thresholds. This was possible because, prior to January 1, 2017, under Regulation C depository institutions that originated even a single closed-end mortgage and met the location and asset coverage criteria generally were required to report on closed-end mortgage applications under HMDA.
Relying on these data, the Bureau was able to evaluate the implications of alternative potential transactional coverage threshold for closed-end mortgage loans. The Bureau recognized that setting a threshold above 25 closed-end loans would not significantly impact the value of HMDA data at the national level. But the Bureau also recognized that public officials, community advocates, and researchers rely on HMDA data to analyze access to credit at the neighborhood level and to target programs to assist underserved communities and consumers and that, therefore, it was appropriate to consider local impacts in setting a transactional coverage threshold.
Additionally, because many depository financial institutions originating even a small number of loans were at the time of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule required to report under HMDA, in estimating the one-time and incremental ongoing costs of implementing and complying with the final rule, the Bureau was able to draw upon actual experience of institutions of various sizes in collecting and reporting HMDA data.
Despite the objections the Bureau has heard since issuing the 2015 HMDA Final Rule to the transactional coverage threshold for closed-end mortgage loans, the Bureau does not have reason to believe that it underestimated the costs of implementation or overestimated the adverse consequences of establishing a higher threshold for analyses at the local level. The Bureau also continues to believe that there are significant benefits in obtaining increased visibility into the originations by nondepositories that originate fewer than 100 closed-end mortgages. For these reasons, as well as those set forth in the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the Bureau does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to reconsider that threshold and therefore is not proposing to do so.
The Bureau is not proposing in this notice to change the effective date for any other provision of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule or to make any other substantive changes to that rule.
The Bureau is issuing this proposal pursuant to its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act and HMDA. This proposed rule consists of amendments to the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
HMDA section 305(a) broadly authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out HMDA's purposes.
A number of HMDA provisions specify that covered institutions must compile and make their HMDA data publicly available “in accordance with regulations of the Bureau” and “in such formats as the Bureau may require.”
In preparing this proposed rule, the Bureau has considered the changes below in light of its legal authority under HMDA and the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau has determined that each of the changes addressed below is consistent with the purposes of HMDA and is authorized by one or more of the sources of statutory authority identified in this part.
Regulation C as amended by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule defines “depository financial institution” as a bank, savings association or credit union that meets certain criteria. One of those criteria is that the institution either (A) originated at least 25 closed-end mortgages loans in each of the two preceding calendar years; or (B) originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. For depositories that do not meet the closed-end mortgage loan component of this test, their status as a depository financial institution under Regulation C turns, in part, on their volume of open-end line of credit originations. Because, as discussed above in section II, the Bureau is proposing to increase temporarily the open-end transactional coverage threshold from 100 to 500, the Bureau is proposing to make a parallel, temporary change in the institutional coverage threshold included in § 1003.2(g) as well. Under this proposed amendment, effective January 1, 2018, a depository institution that did not originate at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding years would not be deemed to be a depository financial institution under Regulation C unless it originated 500 or more open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding years and met the other applicable criteria included in § 1003.2(g)(i).
In accordance with the proposal with respect to the open-end transactional coverage threshold, the Bureau is proposing conforming amendments to the definition of depository financial institution effective January 1, 2020, to revert to the definition established by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule,
As a result, under this proposal, for calendar years 2018 and 2019, financial institutions that do not meet the closed-end mortgage loan component of the test and that originate between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit would not meet the definition of “depository financial institution.” Absent further amendments by the Bureau, beginning in calendar year 2020, such depositories would meet the definition of “depository financial institution.”
The Bureau solicits comment on this proposal.
Under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule a “nondepository financial institution” is defined as a for-profit mortgage lending institution other than a bank, savings association, or credit union that meets certain criteria. One of those criteria is an institutional coverage threshold that is identical to the threshold for depository institutions discussed above. For the reasons discussed above in section II and the section-by-section analysis of § 1003.2(g)(1)(v)(B), the Bureau is proposing conforming amendments to § 1003.2(g)(ii)(B), which includes the open-end loan volume threshold for coverage of nondepository financial institution. Under this proposal, for calendar years 2018 and 2019, the open-end loan volume threshold for institutional coverage of nondepository institutions would be raised from 100 to 500. Absent further amendments by the Bureau, beginning in calendar year 2020, such nondepository institutions would meet the definition of “nondepository financial institution.”
Comments 2(g)-3 and 2(g)-5 each assumed that the open-end institutional threshold was 100. The proposal would amend these comments effective January 1, 2018, to reflect the temporary higher threshold proposed herein and further amends the comment effective January 1, 2020, to restore the original threshold.
Under Regulation C as amended by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, an open-end line of credit is an “excluded
Under this proposal, for calendar years 2018 and 2019, a financial institution that originates between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years would not be required to collect, report, and disclose data on open-end lines of credit. Absent further amendments by the Bureau, beginning in calendar year 2020, such a financial institution would be required to do so.
The Bureau previously proposed to clarify that financial institutions may voluntarily report open-end lines of credit or closed-end mortgage loans even if the institution may exclude those loans pursuant to the transactional thresholds included in § 1003.3(c)(11) or (12) under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
Comment 2(c)(12)-1 assumed that the open-end transactional threshold was 100. The proposal would amend this comment effective January 1, 2018, to reflect the temporary higher threshold proposed herein and further amends the comment effective January 1, 2020, to restore the original threshold.
In developing the proposed rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs and impacts required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of consumer access to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. The Bureau has consulted with, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Department of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by these agencies.
The Bureau previously considered the costs, benefits, and impacts of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule's major provisions, including the institutional coverage threshold and the open-end transactional coverage threshold.
Compared to the baseline established by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule, the proposed temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold would generally benefit financial institutions that originate between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years by, at a minimum, allowing them to delay incurring one-time costs and delay the start of ongoing compliance costs associated with collecting and reporting data on open-end lines of credit. Some institutions may incur costs because they have already planned to report open-end lines of credit and now will not be required to and will need to change their systems. The Bureau does not have a reliable basis to estimate those costs. However, as noted above, the Bureau previously proposed to clarify that financial institutions may voluntarily report open-end lines of credit or closed-end mortgage loans even if the institution may exclude those loans pursuant to the transactional thresholds included in § 1003.3(c)(11) or (12) under the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. If the Bureau finalizes this clarification, a temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold will obviate the need for institutions that are prepared to report open-end lines of credit to change their system. However, to the extent institutions that already have incurred costs in preparing for compliance elect to take advantage of the two-year temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold, unless the Bureau elects during the two-year review period to make the increase permanent, these institutions would incur one-time expenses which, when added to expenses already incurred, may be greater than the one-time costs that would have been incurred had the institutions completed their compliance work by January 1, 2018. As noted above, the Bureau estimates that roughly 690 such institutions would be able to take advantage of the two-year temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold.
The Bureau believes that temporarily increasing the open-end transactional coverage threshold for two years would reduce the benefits to consumers from the open-end reporting provisions of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule as those benefits are described in the rule. However, the Bureau believes that such impact may be minimal because the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold would still, in the aggregate, result in reporting on approximately three-quarters of all open-end lines of credit. However, the Bureau recognizes that there may be particular localities where the impact of the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold would be more pronounced. The Bureau lacks data to be able to estimate the extent to which that may be true.
To the extent there are benefits to covered persons resulting from the temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold, the Bureau believes those benefits would flow almost exclusively to insured depository institutions and credit unions with under $10 billion assets and to a large extent to depository institutions servicing consumers in rural communities. The Bureau does not believe that the proposed temporary increase in the open-end transactional coverage threshold would reduce consumer access to consumer financial products and services, and it may increase consumer access by decreasing the possibility that certain financial institutions increase their pricing as a result of the requirements of the 2015
The Bureau requests comment on this discussion as well as submission of additional information that could inform the Bureau's consideration of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this proposed rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, the Bureau believes that none of the proposed changes would create a significant impact on any covered persons, including small entities. Therefore, an IRFA is not required for this proposal.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau requests comment on the analysis above and requests any relevant data.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Bureau has determined that this proposed rule would not have any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements) on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA. The Bureau welcomes comments on this determination or any other aspects of this proposal for purposes of the PRA. Comments should be submitted to the Bureau as instructed in the
Banks, Banking, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Savings associations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau proposes to amend Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as amended October 28, 2015, at 80 FR 66128, and effective January 1, 2018, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2803, 2804, 2805, 5512, 5581.
[The following amendments would be effective January 1, 2018, further amending the sections as amended October 28, 2015, at 80 FR 66128.]
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
(c) * * *
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; or
The revisions and addition read as follows:
3.
* * *
5.
1.
2.
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10); and
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) In each of the two preceding calendar years, originated at least 100 open-end lines of credit that are not excluded from this part pursuant to § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10).
(c) * * *
(12) An open-end line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 100 open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; or
The revisions and addition read as follows:
3.
* * *
5.
3(c) Excluded transactions.
1.
2.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-02-03, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. AD 2017-02-03 requires inspection of the plastic potable water coupling, and corrective actions if necessary; installation of new spray shrouds; and inspection of previously installed spray shields, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2017-02-03, we have determined that it is necessary to modify a hose assembly installation for certain airplanes, and add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD would add airplanes to the applicability and, for certain airplanes, require hose assembly removals and installations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 5, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On January 11, 2017, we issued AD 2017-02-03, Amendment 39-18782 (82 FR 10541, February 14, 2017) (“AD 2017-02-03”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. AD 2017-02-03 requires inspection of the plastic potable water couplings, corrective actions if necessary, and installation of new spray shrouds. It also requires inspection of the prior installed spray shield to determine it has two slits and is installed correctly, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2017-02-03 resulted from a report of a malfunction of the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) during flight. We issued AD 2017-02-03 to prevent an uncontrolled water leak from a defective potable water system coupling, which could cause the main equipment center (MEC) line replaceable units (LRUs) to become wet, resulting in an electrical short and potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight.
Since we issued AD 2017-02-03, we have determined that additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition and therefore it is necessary to add airplanes to the applicability. We have also determined that the service information specified in AD 2017-02-03 does not adequately address the identified unsafe condition for certain airplanes; therefore, we find it necessary to require, for certain airplanes, removing three hose assemblies and installing four new hose assemblies.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, Revision 3,
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2017-02-03. Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015, that are part of the requirements of AD 2017-02-03, this proposed AD would retain certain requirements. Those requirements are referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3. This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 139 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 5, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-02-03, Amendment 39-18782 (82 FR 10541, February 14, 2017) (“AD 2017-02-03”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, Revision 3, dated September 8, 2016 (“Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 38, Water/waste.
This AD was prompted by a report of a malfunction of the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncontrolled water leak from a defective potable water system coupling, which could cause the main equipment center (MEC) line replaceable units (LRUs) to become wet, resulting in an electrical short and potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3.
Operators can take optional protective measures to cover or shield their equipment against water spray when performing the Potable Water System Leakage Test, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3, uses the phrase “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, March 16, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-02-03) must be used.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3, uses the phrase “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, March 16, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-02-03) must be used.
(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “after the effective date of this AD” must be used.
(1) For airplanes in Groups 4 through 8, 10, 12, and 13, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3: This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, dated November 12, 2013; Boeing Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2014; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015.
(2) For airplanes in Groups 1 through 3, and Group 9, Configuration 2, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, R3: This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-38A0073, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any plastic potable water coupling having part number (P/N) CA620 series or P/N CA625 series on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Stanley Chen, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6585; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 18, 2017.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-128483-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-128483-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning these proposed regulations, Jonathan R. Black, (202) 317-6845; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. These regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, therefore the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. These regulations only update the due dates and extensions of time to file certain collections of information and include some existing regulatory language concerning collections of information that affect small entities for the convenience of the reader. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these proposed regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact on small businesses.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in the preamble under the
The principal author of these regulations is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 31 are proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) [The text of proposed § 1.1446-3(b)(2)(v)(C) is the same as the text of § 1.1446-3T(b)(2)(v)(C) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(g)
(a) * * * (1) [The text of proposed § 1.6012-6(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.6012-6T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(c)
(e) * * *
(2) [The text of proposed § 1.6031(a)-1(e)(2) is the same as the text of § 1.6031(a)-1T(e)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(f)
(a) [The text of proposed § 1.6032-1(a) is the same as the text of § 1.6032-1T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are applicable for returns filed on or after the date a Treasury Decision incorporating these amendments as final regulations is published in the
(e) [The text of proposed § 1.6033-2(e) is the same as the text of § 1.6033-2T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(k)
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) [The text of proposed § 1.6041-2(a)(3)(ii) is the same as the text of § 1.6041-2T(a)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(d)
(a) and (b) [The text of proposed § 1.6041-6(a) and (b) is the same as the text of § 1.6041-6T(a) and (b) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(c)
(a) [The text of proposed § 1.6072-2(a) is the same as the text of § 1.6072-2T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(d) * * *
(1) and (2) [The text of proposed § 1.6072-2(d)(1) and (2) is the same as the text of § 1.6072-2T(d)(1) and (2) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(g)
(a) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-1(a) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-1T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(c)
(a) * * * (1) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-2(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-2T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(h)
(a) [The text of the introductory text of proposed § 1.6081-3(a) is the same as the text of the introductory text of § 1.6081-3T(a) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(e) and (f) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-3(e) and (f) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-3T(e) and (f) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(g)
(a) * * *
(1) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-5(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-5T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(f)
(a) * * * (1) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-6(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-6T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(g)
(a) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-9(a) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-9T(a)
(b) * * *
(1) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-9(b)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-9T(b)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(3) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-9(b)(3) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-9T(b)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(c) through (e) [The text of proposed § 1.6081-9(c) through (e) is the same as the text of § 1.6081-9T(c) through (e) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(f)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(3) [The text of proposed § 31.6071(a)-1(a)(3) is the same as the text of § 31.6071(a)-1T(a)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(g)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Request for comment.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” the United States Army, Corps of Engineers Subgroup to the DoD Regulatory Reform Task Force is seeking input on its existing regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. See the
Interested parties should submit written comments to the address shown below on or before September 18, 2017, to be considered.
You may send comments, identified by docket number COE-2017-0004, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Mary Coulombe, 202-761-1228,
On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people.
Section 3(a) of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” The E.O. further asks that each Task Force “attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; (ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) impose costs that exceed benefits; (iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
Section 3(e) of the E.O. 13777 calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above. Through this notice, the United States Army, Corps of Engineers is soliciting such input from the public to inform evaluation of the United States Army, Corps of Engineers existing regulations by the Task Force's United States Army, Corps of Engineers Subgroup. Although the agency will not respond to each individual comment, the United States Army, Corps of Engineers may follow-up with respondents to clarify comments. The United States Army, Corps of Engineers values public feedback and will consider all input that it receives. In addition to the regulations listed below, we are open to receiving comments on other Corps of Engineers regulations as well.
The Corps regulations subject to this review are:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Maine's regional haze progress report, submitted on February 23, 2016, as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). Maine's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. Maine's progress report notes that Maine has implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by the date of the progress report and that visibility in federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Maine is improving and has already met the applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is proposing approval of Maine's determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet these reasonable progress goals for the first implementation period covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this time.
Written comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0110 at
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area
On February 23, 2016, ME DEP submitted a revision to the Maine SIP detailing the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in its 2010 regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at the Class I areas affected by emissions from Maine, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. EPA is proposing to approve Maine's February 23, 2016 SIP submittal.
On February 23, 2016, Maine submitted its “Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report” (Progress Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.
Maine is home to three Class I areas: Acadia National Park (Acadia), Roosevelt-Campobello International Park (RCIP), and Moosehorn Wilderness Area (Moosehorn). Emissions from Maine sources were also found to be contributing to visibility impairment at nearby Great Gulf Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) in New Hampshire.
Through the consultation process, Maine agreed to pursue the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
This section includes the EPA's analysis of Maine's Progress Report SIP submittal, and an explanation of the basis of our proposed approval.
Maine's 2010 regional haze SIP included the following key measures: Implementation of BART for eligible sources, reducing the sulfur in fuel oil content, and reducing SO
In the Maine 2010 Regional Haze SIP, ME DEP identified 10 facilities subject to BART. For eight of these facilities, the existing controls were determined to be BART. The remaining two sources eligible for BART controls were: Wyman Boiler #3 and Verso Androscoggin at Jay Boilers #1 and #2. As documented in Table 3-1 of the Maine Progress Report, each of these two sources has implemented a permit revision, approved in EPA's April 24, 2012 approval of Maine's regional haze SIP (77 FR 24385), which requires the use of 0.7% sulfur by weight fuel oil by the BART deadline of 2013.
Maine's Progress Report notes the implementation of the MANE-VU “Ask” for sulfur content of fuel oil. The Maine statute, approved by the EPA as part of Maine's regional haze plan, lowers the sulfur content of all distillate fuel oils to 0.0015% sulfur by weight and residual oils to 0.5% sulfur beginning July 1, 2018.
Maine has two EGUs among the 167 EGUs stacks identified for control of sulfur dioxide emission in the MANE-VU “Ask.” These stacks are Wyman units #3 and #4. As previously discussed above, unit #3 was required to reduce the sulfur in fuel content to 0.7% by 2013 with a further reduction to 0.5% sulfur by weight in 2018, as required by Maine's sulfur in fuels statute. Unit #4 is following the same timeline. The Progress Report indicates a 1,138 ton/year SO
The Maine Progress Report also includes the status of SO
During the development of the regional haze SIP for the first planning period, MANE-VU and Maine determined that SO
EPA is proposing to find that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g). Maine has detailed the SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require that States with Class I areas within their borders provide information on current visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values.
Maine is home to three Class I areas; Acadia, RCIP, and Moosehorn. Maine relies on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program monitoring network for visibility measurements. One IMPROVE monitor is located within Acadia. A second IMPROVE monitor is located one mile northeast of Moosehorn. The Moosehorn monitor also serves as the monitor for nearby RCIP. In the Progress Report, ME DEP provides the data in deciviews (dv)
The baseline visibility for Acadia and Moosehorn was 22.9 dv and 21.7 dv, respectively, on the 20% most impaired days. On the 20% least impaired days, the baseline visibility was 8.8 dv and 9.2 dv for these two sites, respectively. The most recent five-year average data for both sites shows an improvement of more than 5 dv on the 20% most visibility impaired days and no visibility degradation on the 20% least impaired days. The 2016 Progress Report demonstrates that the State has already achieved the 2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired days and ensured no visibility degradation for the 20% least impaired days for the first planning period. The Class I area outside of Maine affected by sources in Maine also has achieved the 2018 RPGs.
EPA is proposing to find that Maine provided the required information regarding visibility conditions to meet the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), specifically providing baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently available IMPROVE monitoring data (2010-2014), and a comparison with the RPGs.
In its Progress Report SIP, Maine presents data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the years 2002, 2011, and 2014 (EGUs only), and projected inventories for 2018 for SO
EPA is proposing that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308. ME DEP compares the most recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of development of the Progress Report with the baseline emissions in the regional haze SIP. The Progress Report appropriately details the 2011 SO
In its Progress Report SIP, Maine states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf. While Maine mainly focused its analysis on addressing large SO
EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The State adequately demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO
In its Progress Report SIP, ME DEP states that the elements and strategies relied on in its original Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable Maine and neighboring States to meet all RPGs. To support this conclusion, ME DEP notes in Table 7-1 of the Progress Report that the 2014 EGU SO
EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA views this requirement as an assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information. In its Progress Report, Maine describes the improving visibility trends using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emission trends in key pollutants in the State and the MANE-VU region. Maine determined that the State's regional haze SIP is sufficient for the three Class I areas within the State and the Class I area outside of the State impacted by the State's emissions (Great Gulf) to meet their RPGs.
Maine's visibility monitoring strategy relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE monitor serving Acadia is located within Acadia National Park. The IMPROVE monitor serving Moosehorn and RCIP is located one mile northeast of Moosehorn. ME DEP finds that there is no indication of a need for additional monitoring sites or equipment.
EPA is proposing to find that Maine has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) by reviewing the State's visibility monitoring strategy and assessing whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary.
In its Progress Report SIP, Maine submitted a negative declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emission reductions in Maine beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by 2018 according to Maine's regional haze plan.
In the 2016 SIP submittal, Maine determined that the existing Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the finding that visibility has improved at all Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. In addition, SO
EPA is proposing to conclude that Maine has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility and emission trends indicate that Acadia, Moosehorn, RCIP, and Great Gulf are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and are expected to continue to meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
EPA is proposing to approve Maine's February 23, 2016 regional haze 5-Year Progress Report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
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 21, 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.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 21, 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 20503. Commentors 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
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 21, 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.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 18, 2017.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that will be submitted to OMB for extension.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Thomas P. Dickson, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-4492. Email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on the following information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by September 18, 2017.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492 or email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for revision.
A substantial portion of the electric infrastructure of the United States resides in rural America and is maintained by rural Americans. RUS is uniquely coupled with the electric infrastructure of rural America and its electric borrowers serving rural
Electric borrowers maintain ERPs as part of prudent utilities practices. These ERPs are essential to continuous operation of the electric systems. Each electric borrower provides RUS with an annual self-certification that an ERP exists for the system and that an initial VRA has been performed.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Thomas P. Dickson, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-4492, or email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the requests for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on: Wednesday, August 9, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to conclude work on the Committee's Advisory Memorandum on Solitary Confinement. The committee will also possibly vote on the Advisory Memorandum.
Wednesday, August 9, at 12:00 p.m. EDT.
Public call-in information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-438-5448 and conference call 3640132.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-438-5448 and conference call 3640132. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-438-5448 and conference call 3640132.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meetings of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on: Friday, August 11, 2017 and Friday, August 18 and Friday. The purpose of the meeting is to review and edit the draft report on police practices.
Friday August 11; Friday and August 18; Friday at 12:00 p.m. EDT.
Public call-in information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-267-6301 and conference call 1171256.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-267-6301 and conference call 1171256. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-267-6301 and conference call 1171256.
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meetings or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 27, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its initiation of less-than-fair-value investigations of fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. On June 29, 2017, DAK Americas LLC; Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America; and Auriga Polymers Inc., (collectively, the petitioners), withdrew the antidumping duty (AD) petition with respect to Vietnam. Accordingly, we are terminating the AD investigation of fine denier PSF from Vietnam.
Applicable July 20, 2017.
Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482-4475.
On May 31, 2017, the Department received an AD petition concerning imports of fine denier PSF from Vietnam, filed on behalf of the petitioners.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with a polyester core and an outer, polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core currently classified under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.
Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
In accordance with section 734(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 54 assessment webinar III for HMS Sandbar Shark.
The SEDAR 54 assessment of the HMS Sandbar will consist of a series of assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 54 assessment webinar III will be held on Monday, August 7, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Webinar, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of determination of compliance for the State of New Jersey.
This notice announces the Secretary of Commerce's compliance decision under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act regarding New Jersey recreational management of summer flounder. This notice is necessary to alert the public that the Secreatary of Commerce has made a final determination and will not implement a Federal moratorium on fishing, possession, and landing of summer flounder in New Jersey's state waters. The intended effect of this notice is to inform the public of this determination of compliance.
The date of this determination was July 10, 2017.
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.
In accordance with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), 16 U.S.C. 5101
The Atlantic Coastal Act's noncompliance review and determination process was previously outlined in a notice that published in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hearings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public hearings via webinar pertaining to Amendment 43 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic Region. The amendment would revise the annual catch limit for red snapper in the South Atlantic Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ).
The public hearings will be held via webinar on August 8, 2017 at 6 p.m. and August 10, 2017 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. An informal Question and Answer (Q&A) session will be held via webinar on August 3, 2017 beginning at 6 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Q&A session and public hearings will be conducted via webinar. Registration for each webinar is required. Registration information and public hearing materials will be posted on the Council's Web site at
During the Q&A session Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. During the public hearings, Council staff will review the amendment and members of the public will have the opportunity to provide formal comments for consideration by the Council.
Written comments may be submitted online beginning July 27, 2017 at:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Request for public nominations.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is mandated under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 to conduct a quadrennial National Climate Assessment (NCA). Under its current, updated decadal strategic plan (
NOAA, on behalf of USGCRP, is soliciting nominations for Review Editors for the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4). Refer to the NCA4 Outline (accessible via
The report will adhere to the Information Quality Act requirements (
Nominations should be submitted via the web address specified below (
Nominations for Review Editors must be submitted electronically via a Web form accessible via (
Response to this notice is voluntary. Responses to this notice may be used by the government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. NOAA therefore requests that no business proprietary information or copyrighted information be submitted in response to this notice. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the response.
David Reidmiller, (202) 419-3470,
Wednesday, July 12, 2017.
Dan Barrie, Program Manager, Assessments Program, NOAA Climate Program Office.
Background information and additional details on NCA4 can be found at
This notice seeks nominations for Review Editors to NCA4 with pertinent subject matter expertise and scientific background. The roles of the Review Editor include: (a) Ensuring that all substantive comments submitted during the Public Comment Period and via a National Academies panel review (both
Potential nominees should be accomplished scientists and/or science communicators with climate-related proficiency in at least one of the regions, sectors, or responses topics outlined in the NCA4 Outline, (described below in the Appendix and accessible via
Responses to this request for nominations for Review Editors must be submitted by September 8, 2017. Users can access the nominations form via (
More information on the function of Review Editors, the tasks (including reporting) expected of them, as well as the tentative dates of commitment can be found at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Observer Advisory Committee (OAC) subgroup on low sampling rates in partial coverage.
The meeting will be held Thursday, August 3, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Alaska time.
The meeting will be held by teleconference only: (907) 271-2896.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The agenda will be to discuss progress on the items on the OAC subgroup's workplan, posted here:
Meeting will be listening-only for those that are not on the OAC subgroup.
The meeting is via teleconference. Request for auxiliary aids should be directed to Maria Shawback at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad hoc Sacramento River Winter Chinook Workgroup (SRWCW) and Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS) will hold a joint meeting via webinar to discuss the results of the Management Strategy Evaluation. The meeting is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held on Thursday, August 3, 2017, from 11 a.m. until business for the day has been completed.
The meeting will be held via webinar. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below). To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Ms. Robin Ehlke, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2410.
The SRWCW was formed in November 2015 and tasked with exploring and evaluating alternative fishery management frameworks for Sacramento River winter Chinook. The SRWCW first met in 2016 and identified three areas of focus: (1) Develop methods for forecasting abundance, (2) develop a suite of alternative control rules and (3) evaluate the performance of these control rules with regard to conservation benefits and fishery costs using a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) approach. Since 2016 the group has addressed these tasks and provided progress reports to the Council as information was available. At this webinar, the SRWCW will focus the discussion on the results of the MSE. The SAS will attend to provide input and feedback to the SRWCW. The SRWCW is tentatively scheduled to present preliminary MSE results to the Pacific Fishery Management Council in September 2017, and provide final MSE results in November 2017. The SRWCW may also discuss materials and reports for the Council's September 2017 meeting, and any future meeting plans.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 55 Data Scoping webinar.
The SEDAR 55 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Vermilion Snapper will consist of a series of webinars. See
A SEDAR 55 Data Scoping webinar will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Data Scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will identify who will be providing updated and/or new datasets.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Observer Policy Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will discuss recent and planned work related to 2017 priorities, including development of a policy for monitoring commercial fisheries to address multiple information needs and a strategic approach to bycatch monitoring, and recommend appropriate next steps. The Committee will also discuss priorities for 2018; other business will be discussed as necessary.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting interim extension for a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,179,464.
Mary C. Till by telephone at (571) 272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at (571) 273-7755; or by email to
Section 156 of title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to one year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On June 30, 2017, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., the patent owner of record, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,179,464. The patent claims methods of using the human biological product benralizumab. The application for patent term extension indicates that a Biological License Application (BLA) 761070 was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 16, 2016.
Review of the patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because the regulatory review period will continue beyond the original expiration date of the patent, July 21, 2017, interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate.
An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,179,464 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the patent.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled CNCS Grant Application for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Amy Borgstrom, at 202-606-6930 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within August 21, 2017.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board (DHB) will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, August 10, 2017 from 9:15 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Open to the public Thursday, August 10, 2017 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The address of the open meeting is the Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Salons B-C, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in
CAPT Juliann Althoff, Medical Corps, US Navy, (703) 681-6653 (Voice), (703) 681-9539 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), 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 September 18, 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 August Martin, 202-245-7410.
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 an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 18, 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 on June 30, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an abbreviated application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity authorizing Texas Eastern to excavate, elevate, and replace four different sections of pipelines and appurtenant facilities located in Marshall County, West Virginia due to planned long-wall mining activities in October 2018 known as the Marshall County Mine Panel 18W Project. Texas Eastern seeks authorization to perform work due to the anticipated long-wall mining activities of Marshall County Coal Company in Panel 18W of its Marshall County Mine, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Lisa A. Connolly, Director, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642; Phone: (713) 627-4102, or Fax: (713) 627-5947, or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
On August 16, 2016, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-494-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Wharton, Hardin, San Patricio and Victoria Counties, Texas. The Gulf Connector Expansion Project (Project) would enable 475,000 dekatherms per day of incremental firm natural gas transportation.
On August 25, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Transco proposes to construct new compressor stations in San Patricio, Victoria, and Wharton Counties. The three new compressor stations would total 30,650 horsepower. In addition, there would be modifications to an existing compressor station in Hardin County and modifications to an existing compressor station in Wharton County. Transco would also decommission a compressor station in Refugio County, use the site as a construction storage yard, and construct a new interconnection in San Patricio County.
On September 22, 2016, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork
Comments on the collections of information are due by August 21, 2017.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control Nos. 1902-0028 and 1902-0030, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC17-10-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The forms provide information concerning a company's past performance. The information is compiled using a standard chart of accounts contained in the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA).
The information collected in the forms is used by Commission staff, state regulatory agencies and others in the review of the financial condition of regulated companies. The information is also used in various rate proceedings, industry analyses and in the Commission's audit programs and, as appropriate, for the computation of annual charges based on Page 520 of the forms. The Commission provides the information to the public, interveners and all interested parties to assist in the proceedings before the Commission.
Print versions of the Forms No. 2 and 2-A are located on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that, on June 29, 2017, Freeport LNG Development, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction 4, LLC, (Freeport LNG) 333 Clay Street, Suite 5050, Houston, TX 77002, filed an application seeking authorization pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act, and parts 153 and 380 of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), to site, construct, and operate additional natural gas liquefaction facilities at Freeport LNG Development, L.P.'s existing Quintana Island Terminal in Brazoria County, Texas, as well as associated pretreatment and pipeline facilities, for the purpose of liquefying domestic natural gas for export to foreign countries.
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to: John Tobola, Freeport LNG Development, L.P., 333 Clay Street, Suite 5050, Houston, TX 77002, (713) 980-2888,
This filing is available for review at the Commission's Washington, DC offices, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
On June 3, 2015, FERC granted Freeport LNG's request to initiate the pre-filing review process for the Train 4 Project. During the pre-filing process, Freeport LNG participated in meetings with local, state, and federal officials, as well as individual and agency stakeholders, to identify and resolve issues of potential concern at an early juncture. On August 19, 2015, FERC issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Project and Request for Comments. Now, as of the filing of the application on June 29, 2017, the pre-filing process for this project has ended. From this time forward, Freeport LNG's proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP17-470-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this Project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceeding for this project should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211 (2016), by the comment date below. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission, and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit filings made with the Commission by mail, hand delivery, or internet, in accordance with Rule 2001 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
However, a person does not have to intervene to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-filing link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying the requested authorization will be issued.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
k.
This temporary variance request is separate from the application GRDA filed May 6, 2016, which proposes a permanent amendment of the project's Article 401 rule curve requirements. The May 6, 2016 permanent amendment application is currently under Commission review.
Under GRDA's proposed temporary variance, between August 16 and September 15, 2017, GRDA would maintain the reservoir at elevation 743 feet Pensacola Datum (PD), which is up to two feet higher than the current rule curve. Between September 16 and September 30, the elevation would be lowered from 743 to 742 feet PD, which up to two feet higher than the current rule curve. Between October 1 and October 31, the reservoir would then be maintained at elevation 742 feet PD, which is up to one foot higher than the current rule curve. After October 31, reservoir elevations would follow the current rule curve.
As part of its application, GRDA includes a Storm Adaptive Management Plan that would be followed to address high water conditions upstream and downstream of Grand Lake during major precipitation events in the river basin. GRDA also includes a Drought Adaptive Management Plan that would be followed to determine project operation, including deviations from the rule curve elevations, to allow releases for maintenance of downstream water quality and reliable operation of GRDA's downstream Salina Pumped Storage Project if certain drought conditions occur.
l.
You may also register online at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:19 a.m. on Tuesday, July 18, 2017, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Keith A. Noreika (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B).
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 16, 2017.
1.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend, without revision, the recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with Regulation R.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:
Section 701. Section 701(a)(2)(i) and (b) require banks (or their broker-dealer partners) that utilize the exemption provided in this section to make certain disclosures to high net worth or institutional customers. Specifically, these banks must clearly and conspicuously disclose (i) the name of the broker-dealer and (ii) that the bank employee participates in an incentive compensation program under which the bank employee may receive a fee of more than a nominal amount for referring the customer to the broker- dealer and payment of this fee may be contingent on whether the referral results in a transaction with the broker-dealer.
In addition, one of the conditions of the exemption is that the broker-dealer and the bank have a contractual or other written arrangement containing certain elements, including notification and information requirements. The bank must provide its broker-dealer partner with the name of the bank employee receiving a referral fee under the exemption and certain other identifying information relating to the bank employee.
Section 723. Section 723(e)(1) requires a bank that desires to exclude a trust or fiduciary account in determining its compliance with the chiefly compensated test in section 721, pursuant to a de minimis exclusion 5, to maintain records demonstrating that
Section 741. Section 741(a)(2)(ii)(A) requires a bank relying on this exemption, which permits banks to effect transactions in the shares of a money market fund, to provide customers with a prospectus for the money market fund securities, not later than the time the customer authorizes the bank to effect the transaction in such securities, if the class or series of securities are not no-load. In situations where a bank effects transactions under the exemption as part of a program for the investment or reinvestment of deposit funds of, or collected by, another bank, the Section permits either the effecting bank or the deposit-taking bank to provide the customer a prospectus for the money market fund securities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing its intent to establish a pilot project program under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (the DSCSA Pilot Project Program) to assist in development of the electronic, interoperable system that will identify and trace certain prescription drugs as these are distributed within the United States. Under this program, FDA will work with stakeholders to establish one or more pilot projects to explore and evaluate methods to enhance the safety and security of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain. Participation in the DSCSA Pilot Project Program will be voluntary and will be open to pharmaceutical distribution supply chain members. FDA will be particularly interested in participation reflecting the diversity of the supply chain, including large and small entities from all industry sectors. This notice describes the proposed DSCSA Pilot Project Program, including proposed instructions for submitting a request to participate. FDA is soliciting comments on the proposed collection of information associated with establishment of the DSCSA Pilot Project Program before submitting the proposed collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. FDA does not intend to begin the proposed DSCSA Pilot Project Program or accept requests to participate in the program until OMB has approved the proposed collection of information.
Submit written or electronic comments on this pilot project program by
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper
Daniel Bellingham, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 50, Rm. 4285, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3130,
On November 27, 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. The DSCSA outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system by November 27, 2023, that will identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States. Section 202 of the DSCSA added the new sections 581 and 582 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee and 360eee-1, respectively). Under section 582(j) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to establish one or more pilot projects, in coordination with authorized manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers, to explore and evaluate methods to enhance the safety and security of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain.
FDA will be establishing the DSCSA Pilot Project Program to implement section 582(j) of the FD&C Act. This program will assist the development of the interoperable electronic system to be established by 2023. The new system has the potential to reduce diversion of drugs distributed domestically as well as help reduce the influx of counterfeit drugs from foreign sources. The program will be designed to explore issues related to utilizing the product identifier for product tracing, improving the technical capabilities of the supply chain, identifying the system attributes that are necessary to implement the requirements established under the DSCSA, and any other issues identified by FDA (see section 582(j)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act). Particular program goals include assessing the ability of supply chain members to: Satisfy the requirements of section 582 of the FD&C Act; identify, manage, and prevent the distribution of suspect and illegitimate products as defined in section 581(21) and 581(8) of the FD&C Act, respectively; and demonstrate the electronic, interoperable exchange of product tracing information across the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain, in addition to identifying the system attributes needed to implement the requirements of section 582, particularly the requirement to utilize a product identifier for product tracing and verification purposes. FDA plans to coordinate with stakeholders who reflect the diversity of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain, including large and small entities from all industry sectors. The pilot project is designed to allow industry to identify and evaluate the most efficient systems for their unique operational systems.
FDA will be seeking pilot project participants from the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain (authorized manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers) and other stakeholders. FDA expects that participants will propose the design and execution of their pilot project in their submission to FDA; however, FDA intends to meet with all pilot project participants to ensure that the learnings from the pilot project(s) will be complementary in informing the direction of the development of the electronic, interoperable system that will go into effect in 2023. FDA encourages supply chain members to focus their proposed pilot project(s) on the DSCSA requirements related to the interoperable, electronic tracing of products at the
Proposed pilot projects may include any prescription drug that is a “product” within the meaning of section 581(13) of the FD&C Act. At its discretion, FDA may also consider proposed pilot projects involving product types outside the scope of section 581(13) of the FD&C Act (
On April 5 and 6, 2016, FDA held a public workshop entitled “Proposed Pilot Project(s) under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).” This public workshop provided a forum for members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain to discuss the design objectives of pilot projects established by FDA under section 582(j) of the FD&C Act. Based on the information gathered at that workshop and from the comments submitted to the public docket for the workshop (Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0407), FDA has identified several potential issues to examine, and evaluation methods to use, in pilot projects established under the DSCSA Pilot Project Program. These potential issues and evaluation methods are summarized in table 1. This table is intended only to assist in the design of potential pilot projects; it does not represent FDA's views or policies regarding the issues described in the table. For ease of reference, the potential issues to examine and evaluation methods have been grouped by focus areas for the pilot projects.
FDA also received input from the workshop participants and in the comments submitted to the public docket on factors that the Agency should take into consideration when establishing pilot projects. These factors described in the comments include the extent to which the pilot projects:
• Represent the mix of products and levels of packaging in the supply chain.
• Include a diverse set of supply chain stakeholders (types and sizes) and transaction types.
• Use adaptive design to make the pilot projects more efficient.
• Target known weaknesses in the supply chain.
• Can be completed in time to provide useful information for trading partners.
• Evaluate human factors that could present implementation challenges.
• Simulate illegitimate products/transactions to test a process or system.
• Document costs to implement, use, and maintain piloted solutions.
Although the Agency intends to take these factors into consideration when establishing pilot projects, FDA also recognizes that a single pilot project is unlikely to satisfy every factor. Accordingly, FDA may establish a pilot project based on a request to participate in the program that does not satisfy one or more of the factors listed in this document.
Once the DSCSA Pilot Project Program is established, volunteers interested in participating in the DSCSA Pilot Project Program will be able to submit a request to participate by email to a designated FDA email address for the program. For a group of entities that partner to participate in a pilot project, only one submission and one point-of-contact for the proposed pilot project should be provided in the request to participate. Requests to participate may also consider other ideas for a pilot project that are not included in this notice.
The following information should be included in the request:
• Contact information for the submitter or point of contact, if different from the submitter (name, mailing address, phone number, email address).
• Names of all partnering entities that would participate in such pilot project (name of company and name of company representative).
• Type(s) of each partnering entity participating in the pilot project (partnering entities include authorized trading partners or other supply chain stakeholders).
• Number of employees for each partnering entity that would participate in such pilot project.
• Proposed start and finish dates of the pilot project.
• Commitment to start the pilot project within 4 months of receiving a letter of acceptance from FDA.
• Product(s) that will be used in the pilot project.
• Location(s) where pilot project will be performed (facility address).
• Description of the proposed pilot project, including, but not limited to, the goals, objectives, processes that will be studied, and evaluation methods.
The selected participants should be ready to start their pilot project within 4 months of receiving a letter of acceptance from FDA into the program. The duration of a pilot project should not exceed 6 months. FDA may consider a pilot project with a later start date or longer duration depending on the proposed goal(s) and objective(s). Each pilot project is expected to be completed within the proposed duration time period. This time period does not include an additional 30-days for completion of a final report (see section G. Proposed Reports).
Prior to launching a pilot project, FDA will hold a design strategy meeting with the selected pilot participant(s) to review the goal(s) and objective(s) for the pilot project and discuss the plans and other pertinent details. The participant(s) will be responsible for conducting their pilot project. A group of entities (members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and other stakeholders, including trade associations) that partner to conduct a pilot project may be considered a single participant for purposes of the DSCSA Pilot Project Program. The partners in any pilot project that is selected into the program will be responsible for the funding and resources necessary to conduct the pilot project, and for determining each partner's role and responsibility in their pilot project. Pilot project participants will also be expected to submit reports on the progress of their pilot projects to FDA (see section G. Proposed Reports). Participants should evaluate their pilot project using the evaluation methods they identified during the pilot project design process.
Each pilot project is expected to be completed within the proposed duration time period, and participants will be expected to report progress to FDA while the pilot project is being conducted, in addition to a final report within 30 days of completing the pilot project. These reports will provide insight into the systems and process needed to comply with certain DSCSA requirements for enhance drug distribution security.
Each pilot project program participant is expected to provide reports on the progress of their pilot project to FDA. The progress reports are intended to capture the ongoing work during the pilot project, including but not limited to, current status or results, changes, challenges, and/or lessons learned. FDA will work with participants to develop an appropriate schedule for the submission of progress reports based on the design and duration of the pilot project. Because the duration of a pilot project should not exceed 6 months, the frequency of progress reports will vary based on the length of the individual pilot project. Pilot projects of relatively shorter duration may result in shorter time intervals between progress reports. For example, FDA may ask for monthly progress reports for a 6-month pilot project, however for a one-month pilot project, FDA may ask for weekly progress reports.
Within 30 business days of completing a pilot project, each participant is expected to provide a final report to FDA that captures the description, objectives, methods, evaluation, costs and key findings and lessons learned from the project. Timely completion of pilot project and the final report will support FDA's DSCSA implementation, including the statutory requirements under section 582(j) to consider information from pilot projects in the development of guidances for unit-level tracing and standards for the interoperable data exchange in section 582(h)(3) and (4) of the FD&C Act. FDA may also request that the participants meet with the Agency upon the completion of their pilot project or the final report.
To ensure that all supply chain members benefit from the information generated by the DSCSA Pilot Project Program, FDA intends to make the following information about each of the program's pilot projects available to the public in a final program report: (1) The names and industry sector(s) of the pilot project participant(s); (2) the pilot project's objectives and evaluation methods; (3) the duration of the pilot project; and (4) the key findings and lessons learned from the pilot project. The information related to the DSCSA Pilot Project Program and the final program report will be posted on FDA's Web site.
Any records generated by a participant for conducting a pilot project should be maintained as an entity would as in a normal course of business. For participants that involve partnering entities, the partnering entities can decide who is responsible for the records generated by conducting a pilot project. FDA recommends that the progress reports and the final report that participants create and submit to FDA for a pilot project should be maintained for at least 1 year after completion of the pilot project.
FDA does not intend to begin the proposed DSCSA Pilot Project Program or accept requests to participate in the program until OMB has approved the proposed collection of information described in this notice.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information associated with the DSCSA Pilot Project Program, FDA invites comments on the following topics: (1) Whether the proposed information collected is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimated burden of the proposed information collected, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collected on the respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The estimated burden for the information collection associated with the DSCSA Pilot Project Program consists of the following:
In developing its burden estimate for records associated with the proposed pilot projects, FDA has taken account of existing industry practices for keeping records in the normal course of their business. In particular, FDA is aware of various supply chain stakeholders that have conducted pilot projects over the past few years, including some pilot projects that occurred before the DSCSA was enacted. These pilot projects covered topics related to serialization, movement of product data, aggregation of data, and verification of product identifiers of returned products. Members of the supply chain who conduct pilot projects of their own accord created associated records as a matter of usual and customary business practice. Therefore, the burden estimates for like records associated with the proposed FDA pilot project program are not included in the calculation of the recordkeeping burden (see 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). FDA welcomes comments on the activities identified for conducting a pilot project that FDA considers to be usual and customary business practice.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing a public meeting and an opportunity for public comment on “Patient-Focused Drug Development for Hereditary Angioedema.” Patient-Focused Drug Development is part of FDA's performance commitment under the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). The public meeting is intended to allow FDA to obtain patients' perspectives on the impact of hereditary angioedema (HAE) on daily life. FDA also is seeking patients' views on treatment approaches for HAE.
The public meeting will be held on September 25, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Registration to attend must be received by August 10, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public meeting by November 20, 2017. See the
The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at
Barbara Kass, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 1125, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6887; or Loni Warren Henderson, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 1118, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-8180,
FDA has selected HAE as the focus of a public meeting under the Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative. This initiative involves obtaining a better understanding of patients' perspectives on the challenges posed by HAE and the impact of current therapies for this condition. The Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative is being conducted to fulfill FDA performance commitments that are part of the PDUFA reauthorization under Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144). The full set of performance commitments is available on the FDA Web site at
FDA committed to obtaining the patient perspective on 20 disease areas during the course of PDUFA V. For each disease area, the Agency is conducting a public meeting to discuss the disease and its impact on patients' daily lives, the types of treatment benefits that matter most to patients, and patients' perspectives on the adequacy of the available therapies. These meetings will include participation of FDA review divisions, the relevant patient communities, and other interested stakeholders.
On April 11, 2013, FDA published a notice in the
As part of the Patient-Focused Drug Development, FDA will obtain input on the symptoms and other aspects of the disease that matter most to patients with HAE. FDA also intends to seek patients' perspectives on current approaches to treating HAE. FDA expects that this information will come directly from patients, caregivers, and patient advocates.
HAE is a rare genetic disorder that affects less than 200,000 individuals in the United States. It is associated with episodic recurrent attacks of swelling of the body caused by abnormalities in a protein called C1-Esterase Inhibitor. Most cases occur because there is either not enough of the protein or because the protein does not work normally to help prevent swelling of the body.
In individuals with HAE, the swelling attacks may involve various areas of the body, including the gastrointestinal tract, arms, legs, face, or throat and larynx (voice box). Symptoms of this condition often begin during childhood but may also appear in adulthood. The swelling episodes are usually self-limited; may or may not be associated with any triggering factors; and in severe cases involving the larynx, may be life-threatening. If not recognized early and left untreated, swelling of the larynx, called laryngeal edema, may acutely restrict airflow to the lungs and could result in death. Gastrointestinal tract swellings are often associated with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which can be severe and require hospitalization. Several FDA-approved therapies affecting different biological mechanisms are available to treat or prevent acute attacks of HAE.
The questions that will be asked of patients and patient representatives at the meeting are listed in this section and organized by topic. The two main topics for discussion are: (1) Symptoms and impact on activities of daily life that matter most to patients; and (2) perspectives on current approaches to treatment. For each topic, a brief patient/caregiver panel discussion will begin the dialogue. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion, inviting comments from other patient and caregiver participants. In addition to input generated through this public meeting, FDA is interested in receiving patient input addressing these questions through electronic or written comments,
(1) Of all of the symptoms that you experience because of your condition, which one of these symptoms has the most significant impact on your life? Examples may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, swelling of extremities, facial swelling, tongue swelling, hoarseness or loss of voice, shortness of breath, and difficulty urinating.
(2) Are there specific activities that are important to you that you cannot do at all or as well as you would like because of your condition? Please describe, using specific examples. Examples may include: Participating in physical activities; and attending work or school and family or social activities, during or between attacks.
(3) How have your condition and its symptoms changed over time?
(4) What worries you most about your condition?
(1) What are you currently doing to treat your condition and its symptoms?
• What, if anything, are you doing to prevent acute HAE attacks? Examples may include treatments with prescription medicines; over-the-counter products; and other therapies, including non-drug therapies.
• What, if anything, do you self-administer for acute HAE attacks?
• If you give yourself medication for acute HAE attacks, which types of attacks, with respect to body location(s), are you comfortable treating yourself?
• What treatment has your health professional used for your acute HAE attacks? Examples may include prescription medicines; over-the-counter products; and other therapies, including non-drug therapies.
(2) How well do these treatments work for you?
(3) What are the most significant disadvantages or complications of your current treatments, and how do they affect your daily life?
(4) How has your treatment regimen changed over time and why?
(5) What aspects of your condition are not improved by your current treatment regimen?
(6) What treatment has had the most positive impact on your quality of life?
(7) Short of a complete cure for your condition, what specific things would you look for in an ideal treatment for your condition?
(8) If you had the opportunity to consider participating in a clinical trial studying experimental treatments, what things would you consider when deciding whether or not to participate?
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meetings; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing three public meetings entitled “Enhanced Drug Distribution Security Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).” These public meetings are intended to provide members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and other interested stakeholders an opportunity to discuss with FDA, and provide input on, strategies and issues related to the enhanced drug distribution security provisions of the DSCSA.
The public meetings will be held on: August 23, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; December 5 and 6, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and February 28, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The public meetings will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503A, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Daniel Bellingham, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3130,
On November 27, 2013, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) (Title II, Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. The DSCSA outlines critical steps to build an electronic, interoperable system by 2023 to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States. This system will enhance FDA's ability to protect U.S. consumers from exposure to drugs that may be counterfeit, diverted, stolen, intentionally adulterated, or otherwise harmful by improving the detection and removal of potentially dangerous drugs from the drug supply chain. Section 582(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1(i)), which was added by the DSCSA, directs FDA to hold public meetings to enhance the safety and security of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and provide opportunities for comment from stakeholders.
FDA will hold public meetings on August 23, 2017, December 5 and 6, 2017, and February 28, 2018, on enhanced drug distribution security. The purpose of these public meetings is to provide members of the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain and other interested stakeholders an opportunity to discuss with FDA, and provide input on, strategies and issues related to the enhanced drug distribution security provisions of the DSCSA. These public meetings will focus on the following topics for discussion:
FDA may include additional discussion topics. Materials for each public meeting will be provided on FDA's Web site at
To request registration for the public meetings, provide your information including name, company or organization, address, telephone number, and email address to FDA at
Portions of each public meeting will be recorded and webcast on the day of the meeting. Information for how to access the webcast will be available at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 21, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species—21 CFR part 516 OMB Control Number 0910-0620—Extension
The Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004 (the MUMS Act) (Pub. L. 108-282) added section 572 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360ccc-1), which authorizes FDA to establish new regulatory procedures intended to make more medications legally available to veterinarians and animal owners for the treatment of minor animal species (species other than cattle, horses, swine, chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats). In enacting the MUMS Act, Congress sought to encourage the development of these new animal drugs. Congress recognized that the markets for drugs intended to treat these species, diseases, or conditions are so small that there are often insufficient economic incentives to motivate drug companies to develop data to support approvals. Further, Congress recognized that some minor species populations are too small or their management systems too diverse to make it practical to conduct traditional studies to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of animal drugs for such uses. As a result of these limitations, drug companies have generally not been willing or able to collect data to support legal marketing of drugs for these species, diseases, or conditions. Consequently, Congress enacted the MUMS Act to provide incentives to develop new animal drugs for minor species, while still ensuring appropriate safeguards for animal and human health. Section 572 of the FD&C Act provides for a public index listing of legally marketed unapproved new animal drugs for minor species. FDA regulations in part 516 (21 CFR part 516) specify, among other things, the criteria and procedures for requesting eligibility for indexing and for requesting addition to the index, as well as the annual reporting requirements for index holders. The administrative procedures and criteria for indexing a new animal drug for use in a minor species are set forth in 21 CFR 516.111 through 516.171. Section 516.165 sets forth the annual reporting requirements for index holders. FDA needs the information to determine: (1) The eligibility of a new animal drug for indexing; (2) that a qualified expert panel proposed to review certain information regarding the new animal drug meets the selection criteria listed in the regulations; (3) whether the Agency agrees with the recommendation of a qualified expert panel that a drug be added to the index; and (4) whether there may be grounds for removing a drug from the index.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We based our estimates in tables 1 and 2 on our experience with the MUMS indexing program and the requests for eligibility for indexing and for addition to the index, as well as the periodic drug experience reports submitted during the past 3 years. The burden has not changed since the last OMB approval.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect an order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 18, 2017.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1724, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
I. Watershed-based studies:
II. Non-watershed-based studies:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by August 21, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, BLM, 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington, BLM. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval that includes establishment of a common form. The NPS will be the “host agency” of the common form. Other agencies that may use the information collection are listed below. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. We 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before August 21, 2017.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Karen Mudar at
Section 4 of the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 U.S.C 470cc), and Section 3 of the Antiquities Act (AA) of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 320301-320303), authorize any individual or institution to apply to Federal land managing agencies to scientifically excavate or remove archeological resources from public or Indian lands. Archeological investigations that require permits include excavation, shovel-testing, coring, pedestrian survey (with and without removal of artifacts), underwater archeology, photogrammetry, and rock art documentation. Individuals, academic and scientific institutions, museums, and businesses that propose to conduct archeological field investigations must obtain a permit before the project may begin.
To apply for a permit, applicants submit DI Form 1926 (Application for Permit for Archeological Investigations). In general, an application includes, but is not limited to, the following information:
Statement of Work.
Statement of Applicant's Capabilities.
Statement of Applicant's Past Performance.
Curriculum vitae for Principal Investigator(s) and Project Director(s).
Written consent by State or tribal authorities to undertake the activity on State or tribal lands that are managed by Federal land managing agencies, if required by the State or tribe.
Curation Authorization.
Detailed Schedule of All Project Activities.
Persons receiving a permit must submit a final report upon completion of the field component of the research project.
Potential and actual other agencies, besides NPS, that may use the common form and this collection include:
On December 19, 2016, we published a
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
The authorities for this action are the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (54 U.S.C. 100101
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lake Meredith National Recreation Area at the address in this notice by August 21, 2017.
Robert Maguire, Superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-3151, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, Fritch, TX. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites in Potter County, TX.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
In 1964, human remains representing a minimum of 43 individuals were recovered during legally-authorized excavation by F.E. Green of Texas Tech University at the Footprint site, then under the management of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
In the
Based on the above-mentioned information, the superintendent of Lake Meredith National Recreation Area has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of 49 individuals of Native American ancestry. The superintendent of Lake Meredith National Recreation Area also has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(2), the 347 objects listed above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as a part of a death rite or ceremony.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Robert Maguire, Superintendent, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1460, Fritch, TX 79036, telephone (806) 857-3151, email
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; and the Cohuiltecan Nation, an Indian group that is not federally recognized, that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 in this investigation and has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting importation of infringing automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same, as well as issued cease and desist orders directed to Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated and Diebold Self-Service Systems both of North Canton, Ohio. The investigation is terminated.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 14, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus”). 81 FR 13149 (Mar. 14, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,891,551 (“the '551 patent”); claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,950,655 (“the '655 patent”); claims 1-4, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,152,165 (“the '165 patent”); and claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,235 (“the '235 patent”).
On June 30, 2016, the ALJ granted a motion by Nautilus to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the '551 patent and the '165 patent.
On July 21, 2016, the ALJ granted a motion by Nautilus to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the '655 patent.
On February 6, 2017, the ALJ granted a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to reflect a corporate name change of Diebold, Incorporated to Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated.
On March 13, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID, finding a violation of section 337 by Diebold in connection with claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '235 patent. Specifically, the ID finds that the
The ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued concurrently with the final ID. RD at 330-40. The ALJ recommends that in the event the Commission finds a violation of section 337, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of Diebold's automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe the asserted claims of the '235 patent. RD at 335. The ALJ also recommends issuance of cease and desist orders based on the presence of Diebold's commercially significant inventory in the United States. RD at 338. With respect to the amount of bond that should be posted during the period of Presidential review, the ALJ recommends that the Commission set a bond in the amount of zero (
On March 27, 2017, Diebold filed a petition for review of the ID. On April 4, 2017, Nautilus filed a response to Diebold's petition for review.
On May 15, 2017, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part and requested the parties to brief certain issues.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the final ID, and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to (1) affirm the ALJ's finding that the accused products and domestic industry products satisfy the claim limitation “horizontally transfer sheets along the main transfer path” and (2) reverse the ALJ's finding that certain prior art does not disclose the preamble to claim 1: “Automatic depositing apparatus for automatically depositing a bundle of banknotes including at least one cheque.” The Commission adopts the ID's findings to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Commission opinion issued herewith.
Having found a violation of section 337 in this investigation, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is: (1) A limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '235 patent that are manufactured on or behalf of, or imported on or behalf of Diebold or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law, and except for service or repair articles imported for use in servicing or repairing automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same, for identical articles that were imported as of the date of this Order. This exception does not permit the importation of automated teller machines to replace such articles that were previously imported; and (2) cease and desist orders prohibiting Diebold from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: Importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same covered by one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '235 patent. The proposed cease and desist orders include the following exemptions: if in a written instrument, the owner of the patents authorizes or licenses such specific conduct, such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by or for the United States, or such specific conduct is related to service or repair articles imported for use in servicing or repairing automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same, for identical articles that were imported as of the date of this Order. This exception does not permit the importation of automated teller machines to replace such articles that were previously imported.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f)) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist orders. Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of zero is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) of automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that are subject to the remedial orders. The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
July 27, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1332 (Final) (Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India and Italy). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by August 14, 2017.
5. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-669 (Fourth Review) (Cased Pencils from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by August 17, 2017.
6. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-583 and 731-TA-1381 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China, provided for in subheading 7307.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by August 28, 2017. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by September 5, 2017.
July 13, 2017.
Amelia Shister ((202) 205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 9, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HEDGE IV intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 14, 2017, HEDGE IV filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 10, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 20, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and WITEK intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 2008, WITEK filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 24, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 26, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, (“the Act”), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Calrec Audio, Inc., West Yorkshire, UNITED KINGDOM; IML Co. Ltd., Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; and Nextera Video, LLC, El Dorado Hills, CA, have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, Arkena, Paris, FRANCE; Aspera, Inc., Emeryville, CA; TransMedia Dynamics Ltd., Aylesbury, UNITED KINGDOM; and Sebastien Crème (individual member), Paris, FRANCE, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 24, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 28, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, (“the Act”), Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (“CableLabs”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Stofa A/S. Horsens, DENMARK; NBN Co. Limited, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA; NOWO Communications, S.A., Lisbon, PORTUGAL; and Guangdong Cable Corporation Limited, Guangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC of CHINA, have been added as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 30, 2017. A notice was published in the
Criminal Division, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encourages and will be accepted for an additional 30 day until August 21, 2017.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Office of Enforcement Operations, JCK Building, Room 1210, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to
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) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Agency form number: DOJ\CRM\OEO\GDR-1. Sponsoring component: Department of Justice, Criminal Division.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: Not-for-profit institutions, individuals or households, and State, Local or Tribal Government. The form can be used by any entity required to register under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962 (15 U.S.C. 1171-1178).
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that 7,800 respondents will complete each form within approximately 5 minutes.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 650 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.
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.
On July 14, 2017, a proposed Settlement Agreement among the Governments (United States, five States, seven Tribes, the Debtors (Peabody Energy Corporation and its 152 debtor-affiliates), and the Gold Fields Liquidating Trust was filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in
The proposed Settlement Agreement will resolve certain proofs of claim asserted against Debtors under the Comprehensive Environmental
The sites included in the settlement are:
(1) The 5-acre portion of the Former American Zinc, Lead and Smelting Company Site or AZLS in Montgomery County, Kansas also referred to as the “Caney Parcel” or the “Caney Repository” that was previously owned by Gold Fields Mining, LLC.
(2) The Anderson-Calhoun Mine and Mill Superfund Site in Stevens County, Washington.
(3) The ASARCO Taylor Springs Superfund Site in Montgomery County, Illinois.
(4) The Bautsch Gray Mine Superfund Site in Jo Daviess County, Illinois.
(5) The Caney Residential Yards Site in Montgomery County, Kansas.
(6) The Carpenter-Snow Creek Mining District Superfund Site in Cascade County, Montana.
(7) The Cherokee County Superfund Site in Cherokee County, Kansas.
(8) The East La Harpe Smelter Site in Allen County, Kansas.
(9) The Grandview Mine and Mill Superfund Site in Pend Oreille County, Washington.
(10) The Jasper County Superfund Site in Jasper County, Missouri, also known as the Oronogo/Duenweg Mining Belt Site.
(11) The Klondyke Tailings Removal Site in Graham County, Arizona.
(12) The Old American Zinc Plant Superfund Site in St. Clair County, Illinois.
(13) The Tar Creek Superfund Site in Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $ 7.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of new General Records Schedule (GRS) Transmittal 28.
NARA is issuing a new set of General Records Schedules (GRS) via GRS Transmittal 28. The GRS provides mandatory disposition instructions for administrative records common to several or all Federal agencies. Transmittal 28 announces changes we have made to the GRS since we published Transmittal 27 in January. We are concurrently disseminating Transmittal 28 (the memo and the accompanying records schedules and documents) directly to each agency's records management official and have also posted it on NARA's Web site.
This transmittal is effective the date it publishes in the
You can find this transmittal on NARA's Web site at
For more information about this notice or to obtain paper copies of the GRS, contact Kimberly Keravuori, External Policy Program Manager, by email at
Writing and maintaining the GRS is the GRS Team's responsibility. This team is part of Records Management Services in the National Records Management Program, Office of the Chief Records Officer at NARA. You may contact NARA's GRS Team with general questions about the GRS at
Your agency's records officer may contact the NARA appraiser or records analyst with whom your agency normally works for support in carrying out this transmittal and the revised portions of the GRS. You may access a list of the appraisal and scheduling work group and regional contacts on our Web site at
GRS Transmittal 28 announces changes to the General Records Schedules (GRS) made since NARA published GRS Transmittal 27 in January 2017. The GRS provide mandatory disposition instructions for records common to several or all Federal agencies. We are nearing the end of our five-year plan to completely rewrite the GRS. With Transmittal 28, 92% of old items are now superseded.
Transmittal 28 includes only schedules newly issued or updated since the last transmittal, those schedules' associated new-to-old crosswalks and FAQs, an update to the FAQs for GRS 6.1 (but not schedule 6.1 itself, which remains unchanged), and an update to the FAQs about Flexible Dispositions. This means that many current GRS schedules are
This means that many current GRS schedules are
GRS Transmittal 28 publishes nine new schedules:
It also publishes a new item in one schedule: GRS 1.1, Financial Management and Reporting Records (see question 3). In addition, it supersedes in its entirety GRS 4.3, Input Records, Output Records, and Electronic Copies (see question 4).
This transmittal also includes an updated table of contents that shows some alterations to the previously published schedule titles. Research led us to conclude that it is not possible at this time to write a GRS for legal records, so the number assigned to that anticipated schedule—GRS 6.3—has been assigned instead to Information Technology Records. A new schedule for rulemaking records is GRS 6.6. Both 6.3 and 6.6 should be published in Transmittal 29.
This transmittal publishes a revised Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for GRS 6.1. The revisions include adding new GRS citations where appropriate; removing unnecessary references to some CFR citations in Q3; clarifying Q4 text; clarifying culling in Q22; and clarifying how to report calendars, appointments, tasks, chat transcripts, and other communications on NA-1005 in Q27. Finally, this transmittal publishes updated FAQs on Flexible Dispositions, adding a new Q6 about batching records for disposal.
We added one new item (080) to cover administrative claims made by or against the Federal Government. We also added three new questions to the GRS 1.1 FAQs concerning travel receipts scanned into e-systems (question 9), audit records (question 16) and use of item 080 (question 18).
We deleted GRS 4.3, Input Records, Output Records, and Electronic Copies, because we have superseded its seven items with two new items in GRS 5.1 and 5.2. We superseded GRS 4.3, item 040, Non-recordkeeping copies of electronic records, with the closely parallel and identically titled GRS 5.1, item 020. We moved it to 5.1 to place it in context with other common office records. The new item is media-neutral. We superseded GRS 4.3, items 010, 011, 020, 030, 031, and 040 with GRS 5.2, item 020, Intermediary records. We found we could gather records of various formats from various sources into a single unit by recognizing this unifying trait: They are stopping points
Many old GRS items are superseded by new GRS items. A few old items, however, have outlived their usefulness and cannot be crosswalked to new items. The table below lists old items newly rescinded by GRS Transmittal 28.
Rescinded items are shown in context of their schedules in the old-to-new crosswalk.
When you send records to an FRC for storage, you should cite the records' legal authority—the “DAA” number—in the “Disposition Authority” column of the table. For informational purposes, please include schedule and item number. For example, “DAA-GRS-2013-0001-0004 (GRS 4.3, item 020).”
NARA regulations (36 CFR 1226.12(a)) require agencies to disseminate GRS changes within six months of receipt.
Per 36 CFR 1227.12(a)(1), you must follow GRS dispositions that state they must be followed without exception.
Per 36 CFR 1227.12(a)(3), if you have an existing schedule that differs from a new GRS item that does
If you do not have an already existing agency-specific authority but wish to apply a retention period that differs from that specified in the GRS, you must submit a records schedule to NARA for approval via the Electronic Records Archives.
You can download the complete current GRS, in PDF format, from NARA's Web site at
Writing and maintaining the GRS is the responsibility of the GRS Team. You may contact the team with general questions about the GRS at
Your agency's records officer may contact the NARA appraiser or records analyst with whom your agency normally works for support in carrying out this transmittal. A list of the appraisal and scheduling work group and regional contacts is on the NARA Web site at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of proposed extension request.
NARA proposes to request an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of approval to use a voluntary survey of visitors to the Public Vaults located at the National Archives in Washington, DC. We use this information to determine how the various components of the Public Vaults affect visitors' level of satisfaction with the Public Vaults and how effectively the venue communicates to them that records matter. And we use it to make changes that improve the overall visitor experience. We invite you to comment on this proposed information collection.
We must receive written comments on or before September 18, 2017.
Send comments to Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (MP), Room 4100; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, fax them to 301-837-0319, or email them to
Contact Tamee Fechhelm by telephone at 301-837-1694 or email at
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), NARA invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection and its accuracy; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information we collect; (d) ways we could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through information technology; and (e) whether this collection affects small businesses. We will summarize any comments you submit and include the summary in our request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, we solicit comments concerning the following information collection:
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 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Closed teleconference of the Committee on Strategy of the National Science Board, to be held Tuesday, July 25, 2017 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 Noon. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
Closed.
Committee Chair's opening remarks; Review and discussion of the FY 2019 budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget; Committee Chair's closing remarks.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Kathy Jacquart, 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
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License application; withdrawal of notice of opportunity to request a hearing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing the notice of opportunity to request a hearing for Waste Control Specialists LLC's application to construct and operate a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel at WCS's facility in Andrews County, Texas.
July 20, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0231 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-Chau Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0262; email:
By letter dated April 28, 2016, as supplemented on July 20, August 19, August 31, September 27, October 7, November 16, December 16, December 22, 2016, and March 16, 2017, WCS submitted an application for a specific license pursuant to part 72 of title 10 of the
In addition, by letter dated July 21, 2016, WCS requested that the NRC initiate its environmental impact statement (EIS) process for the WCS CISF license application as soon as practicable. By letter dated October 7, 2016, the NRC informed WCS of its decision to start the EIS process in advance of making a decision on docketing the application. On November 14, 2016 (81 FR 79531), the NRC published a notice in the
By letter dated January 26, 2017, the NRC informed WCS of its decision to accept the application and proceed with the technical review. Subsequently, on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 8773), the NRC published a notice in the
By letter dated March 16, 2017, WCS submitted Revision 1 to its license application. By letter dated April 18, 2017, WCS requested that the NRC temporarily suspend all safety and environmental review activities as well as public participation activities associated with WCS' license application. On April 19, 2017, WCS and the NRC staff jointly requested that the Commission withdraw the hearing notice, explaining that a new
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.38E (Odd and Mixed Lots) to specify the ranking of an odd lot order that has a display price that is better than its working price. 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 amend Rule 7.38E (Odd and Mixed Lots) to specify the ranking of an odd lot order that has a display price that is better than its working price.
Rule 7.38E provides that the working price of an odd lot order will be adjusted both on arrival and when resting on the Exchange Book based on the limit price of the order as follows:
• If the limit price of an odd lot order is equal to or worse than the contra-side PBBO, it will have a working price equal to the limit price.
• If the limit price of an odd lot order is better than the contra-side PBBO, it will have a working price equal to the contra-side PBBO.
• If the PBBO is crossed, the odd lot order will have a working price equal to the same-side PBB or PBO.
By moving the working price, an odd lot order to buy (sell) will not trade at a price above (below) the PBO (PBB), or if the PBBO is crossed, above (below) the PBB (PBO). In either case, if the odd lot order is ranked Priority 2—Display Orders,
Exchange rules are currently silent regarding how a resting odd lot order that has a display price that is better than its working price would be ranked for trading at that working price.
The Exchange proposes to specify that in such case, the ranking and priority category applicable to such an order at its display [sic],
The Exchange further believes that if an odd-lot order is assigned a new working price that is worse than its display price, such order should not be assigned a new working time. In other words, when trading at its working price, its time ranking would be based on the working time associated with its display price.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.38E(b)(1) to provide that an odd-lot order ranked Priority 2—Display Orders would not be assigned a new working time if its working price is adjusted under Rule 7.38E(b)(1). In addition, if the display price of an odd lot order to buy (sell) is above (below) its working price, it would be ranked based on its display price.
Because once on Pillar, the Exchange would trade an odd lot order with a display price better than its working price trades in this manner [sic], these changes will be in effect when the Exchange implements Pillar.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the Exchange believes that an order that has been displayed should receive the benefit of the ranking of that displayed price if it trades at a less aggressive working price. This scenario would only occur if a resting odd-lot order has been displayed at a price, and then an Away Market PBBO crosses that price and then the working price of that order is adjusted to a price inferior to its display price. In such case, while the odd lot order would be executed at its working price, because it was both willing to trade at a better price
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote transparency in Exchange rules and reduce potential confusion regarding how an odd-lot order would be ranked and execute in the limited scenario when the display price of a resting odd lot has been crossed, and it has been assigned a working price inferior to its display price.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather to provide an incentive for market participants to enter aggressively-priced displayed liquidity.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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
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: (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 change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 filed a proposed rule change to amend the fees applicable to securities listed on the Exchange, which are set forth in Exchange Rule 14.13. Changes to the Exchange's fees pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules applicable to the qualification, listing, and delisting of companies on the Exchange,
The Exchange submits this proposal to decommission the Issuer Incentive Program. Currently, under Exchange Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C), the issuer of each class of securities that is a domestic or foreign issue listed on the Exchange as an ETP is eligible to receive payments from the Exchange on a quarterly basis based on the CADV of the ETP for each trading day of the preceding calendar
The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) effective July 3, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange is proposing to decommission the Issuer Incentive Program, which established payments from the Exchange to ETP issuers that list on the Exchange and achieve a particular CADV threshold. The Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable, reasonable, and non-discriminatory because decommissioning the Issuer Incentive Program will affect all ETP issuers listing on the Exchange equally. The Exchange also believes that the proposal to eliminate the Issuer Incentive Program is reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and other charges because it would apply equally to all Issuers and eliminating the payment will allow the Exchange to better allocate its resources in order to make it a more attractive listing venue for ETPs. Additionally, the payments under the Issuer Incentive Program have not had the impact that the Exchange sought when it was implemented.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) to eliminate the Issuer Incentive Program is a reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory allocation of fees and other charges to issuers.
The Exchange believes that the proposal would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange acknowledges that it operates in a highly competitive environment, and that ETP issuers may opt to disfavor listing on the Exchange if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of ETP issuers or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes to the Exchange's standard fees, rebates and tiered pricing structure burdens competition, but instead, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of the Exchange.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 17, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchange's proposal, as described above.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to indicate the treatment of various symbols which are migrating to INET technology in July 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
These rule changes are being made in connection with the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq INET technology, which began on June 12, 2017.
The Exchange proposes that Select Symbols which will migrate to INET from July 3rd through July 30th 2017, as noticed by the Exchange in Options Trader Alert #2017-51
During the transition symbols will migrate from the legacy T7 system to the INET system. The two systems utilize different billing systems. For ease of transition and to ensure that Members are not impacted by the transition to a new billing system, the Exchange is proposing to simply not apply the Market Maker Plus Tiers to the symbols which will be transitioning from July 3rd through July 30th 2017 for the month of July 2017. In August 2017, the Migrated Symbols will all be subject to the INET billing system and therefore the Exchange would begin applying the Market Maker Plus Tiers at that time.
The Exchange proposes to exclude Select Symbols which will migrate to INET on July 31, 2017, as noticed by the Exchange at Options Trader Alert #2017-51 (“July 31 Migrated Symbols”) and only include activity from July 3, 2017 through July 30, 2017 for purposes of qualifying for the Market Maker Plus Tiers for the month of July 2017.
As noted above, since the July 31 Migrated Symbols will migrate from the legacy T7 system to the INET system and utilize two different billing systems the Exchange proposes this exclusion. The Exchange believes that the exclusion will provide ease of transition and ensure that Members are not impacted by the transition to a new billing system. In August 2017, the July 31 Migrated Symbols will be subject to the INET billing system and therefore the Exchange would begin applying the Market Maker Plus Tiers at that time for the entire month of August 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal that Migrated Symbols will not be subject to Market Maker Plus Tiers 1-3 for the month of July 2017 is reasonable because the Exchange will utilize two billing systems with the migration from legacy T7 to INET. For ease of transition and to ensure that Members are not impacted by the transition to a new billing system, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not apply the Market Maker Plus Tiers to the symbols which will be transitioning from July 3rd through July 30th 2017 for the month of July 2017. The new INET system would result in higher performance, scalability, and more robust architecture for ISE Members.
The Exchange's proposal that Migrated Symbols will not be subject to Market Maker Plus Tiers 1-3 for the month of July 2017 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all transactions in Migrated Symbols on INET.
The Exchange's proposal that July 31 Migrated Symbols will only include activity from July 3, 2017 through July 30, 2017 for purposes of qualifying for the Market Maker Plus Tiers for the month of July 2017 is reasonable because the Exchange will utilize two billing systems with the migration from legacy T7 to INET. For ease of transition and to ensure that Members are not impacted by the transition to a new billing system, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude the July 31, 2017 trading activity from the Market Maker Plus Tiers for the July 31 Migrated Symbols and only apply activity from July 3rd through July 30th 2017 for purposes of qualifying for the Market Maker Plus Tiers for the month of July 2017. The new INET system would result in higher performance, scalability, and more robust architecture for ISE Members.
The Exchange's proposal to exclude activity for July 31, 2017 for the July 31 Migrated Symbols qualification for July 2017 and only include activity from July 3, 2017 through July 30, 2017 for purposes of qualifying for the Market Maker Plus Tiers for the month of July 2017 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all transactions in July 31 Migrated Symbols on INET.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to remove outdated rule text from GEMX's Rulebook and Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to remove certain rule text in the GEMX Rulebook and Fee Schedule which reflects certain dates which are no longer applicable. The Exchange proposes to remove the proposed outdated rule text to avoid confusion in the Rulebook and Fee Schedule. Each change is discussed below.
The Exchange proposes to remove text from GEMX Rule 716, entitled “Block Trades.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove the following rule text, “The Block Order Mechanism in Rule 716(c) will not be available on a date prior to February 27, 2017, the date to be announced in a separate Market Information Circular. The Exchange will recommence the Block Order Mechanism on Nasdaq GEMX prior to June 1, 2017, the date to be announced in a separate Market Information Circular.” This rule text was added at the time the Exchange proposed to delay this functionality.
The Exchange proposes to remove the following outdated sentences in Sections I and II of the Fee Schedule:
• There will be no fees or rebates for trades in options overlying Symbol CPN executed on February 27-28, 2017.
• For March 2017 only, all Qualifying Tier Threshold ADV calculations will be based on the better of (1) the member's full month ADV for the period of March 1-31, 2017, or (2) the member's ADV for the period of March 1-24, 2017.
• Volume executed in options overlying Symbol CPN on February 27-28, 2017 will not be counted towards a member's tier for February activity.
The operative dates for the pricing noted above has expired. The Exchange desires to remove the outdated text from its Fee Schedule to avoid confusion.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
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 Exchange's proposal to remove the outdated text does not impose an undue burden on competition because the specified text does not apply to any market participant.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 correct a lettering issue with the ISE Rulebook.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to correct a lettering reference in the ISE Rulebook. The Exchange recently added a new definition to Rule 715. The Exchange filed to add a new definition of Opening Sweep at Rule 715(t).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to re-letter the Opening Sweep definition will avoid confusion in the Rulebook.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statement [sic] 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 IEX Rule 16.135(b)(1) to clarify that the description in a proposal under Section 19(b) of the Act to list a series of Managed Fund Shares constitutes continued listing standards for such series of Managed Fund Shares. The proposed rule change is substantially identical to a recent Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) rule change.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the applicability section of IEX Rule 16.135(b)(1) to specify that any of the statements or representations regarding not just the description of the portfolio, but also of the reference assets, among other things, will constitute continued listing requirements for listing of shares. This revision will conform the language to current criteria in IEX Rule 16.135(d)(2)(C)(iv) with respect to criteria for IEX to consider the suspension of trading and initiation of delisting proceedings of a series of Managed Fund Shares under the IEX Rule Series 14.500.
The Exchange does not currently list any Managed Fund Shares.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to amend the applicability section of IEX Rule 16.135(b)(1) to specify that any of the statements or representations regarding not just the description of the portfolio, but also of the reference assets, among other things, will constitute continued listing requirements for listing of shares will provide clarity and accurately reflect the intent of the rule to the benefit of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may enhance competition since it addresses an inconsistency in the applicability of listing standards applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under 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. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 May 15, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Bats BZX”); Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Bats EDGX”); BOX Options Exchange LLC (“BOX”); C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (“C2”); Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”); Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”); International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”); Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX”); Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”); MIAX PEARL, LLC (“PEARL”); NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”); and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on each of the proposed rule changes. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule changes so that it has sufficient time to consider the comments received and any response to the comments that the self-regulatory organizations might provide.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 27, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) (each an “Exchange,” and collectively the “Exchanges”) each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On December 20, 2016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve or disapprove the proposed rule changes or to institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposals.
Currently, under Exchange Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III), a DMM with a long (short) position in an assigned security cannot, during the last ten minutes before the close of trading, make a purchase (sale) in that security that results in a new high (low) price on the Exchange for the day.
The Exchanges assert that, in light of developments in the equity markets and in their trading model, the Prohibited Transactions Rule has lost its original purpose and utility.
The Exchanges assert that the rationale behind the Prohibited Transactions Rule—preventing specialists from setting the price of a security on the Exchange in the final ten minutes of trading—was to prevent a specialist from inappropriately influencing the price of a security at the close to advantage the specialist's proprietary position.
The Commission received one comment letter in support of the NYSE proposal and a combined response letter from NYSE and NYSE MKT.
Second, the commenter states that the Prohibited Transactions Rule is unnecessary because existing NYSE and Commission rules “prohibit all market participants, including DMMs, from engaging in market manipulation, including around the close.”
According to NYSE and NYSE MKT, in today's electronic marketplace, where increased automation of trading has decentralized control of pricing decisions away from the DMM and from other market participants on the Exchanges' trading floor, retaining the Prohibited Transactions Rule is no longer necessary.
Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act,
After careful consideration of the proposals, and for the reasons discussed below, the Commission does not believe that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchanges propose to eliminate the Prohibited Transactions Rule—a negative obligation imposed on DMMs to restrict aggressive trading immediately before the close—and the Commission analyzes the proposed rule changes in the context of the unique role played by DMMs on the Exchanges. Because the Exchanges' proposal would alter the balance of the benefits and obligations of DMMs, and in light of the special responsibilities that DMMs have for the closing auction on the Exchanges, the Commission sought comment in the Orders Instituting Proceedings on these topics. Specifically, the Commission asked for public comment on whether each Exchange's proposal “would maintain an appropriate balance between the benefits and obligations of being a DMM on the Exchange and whether the obligations of DMMs under remaining Exchange rules are reasonably designed to prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close in light of DMMs' special responsibility for closing auctions under Exchange rules.”
The Prohibited Transactions Rule was originally adopted by NYSE in 2006 as NYSE moved to its “hybrid market” model,
Exchange Rule 104 sets forth the obligations of DMMs on each Exchange, which include the affirmative obligation to engage in a course of dealings for their own account to assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market in securities for which they have been assigned responsibility as the DMM, to maintain quotes in their assigned securities at the inside market a specified percentage of time, and to facilitate certain transactions in their assigned securities, most notably the opening and closing auctions.
Supporting these general obligations, Exchange Rules 104(g) and 104(h) regulate specific types of DMM transactions: Neutral Transactions, Non-Conditional Transactions, Conditional Transactions, and Prohibited Transactions.
In return for their obligations and responsibilities, DMMs have significant priority and informational advantages in trading on the Exchanges, both during continuous trading and during the closing auction. During continuous trading, DMMs trade on parity with the entire order book and with floor brokers, which “provides DMMs with a substantial advantage over off-Floor orders” sent to the NYSE order book.
In proposing to remove the Prohibited Transactions Rule, however, NYSE and NYSE MKT have failed to adequately explain or justify how the proposed alteration to the balance of benefits and obligations of a DMM previously approved by the Commission is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, or how allowing DMMs to aggressively take liquidity in the last ten minutes of trading is both consistent with a DMM's obligation to maintain a fair and orderly market in its assigned securities and designed to prevent fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices regarding the closing auction, for which a DMM has crucial responsibilities.
The Exchanges and Citadel in their comment letters argue that changes in market structure such as the inability of DMMs, compared to specialists, to “set prices” in their assigned securities, and the movement of trading volume in NYSE-listed securities away from the NYSE, support the elimination of the Prohibited Transactions Rule. But, as noted above, the Prohibited Transactions Rule was included in the New Market Model rule filing that established the role of DMMs, and the market-share statistics offered by Citadel—which purportedly establish the relatively weak pricing power of a DMM
Additionally, while NYSE and NYSE MKT have argued that the proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act because remaining exchange rules address the possibility of disruptive or improper DMM trading during the last ten minutes of the day, the Commission does not believe that NYSE and NYSE MKT have met their burden to demonstrate that these other rules—which require the exercise of judgment as to what is “reasonable,” “excessive,” “appropriate,” or “commensurate”
Thus, because the Exchanges' arguments in favor of the proposed rule changes do not adequately address significant issues raised by the proposals, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 333, I hereby delegate to the Director the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur in programs authorized by section 333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the Secretary or a Deputy Secretary. Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
UP has certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no need to reroute any traffic over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is pending either with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of service shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will be effective on August 19, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Union Pacific Railroad Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by August 21, 2017.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2017-0027.
Bruce Bradley, 202-493-0564, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Real Estate Services, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Similarly, FHWA established the Excellence in Utility Relocation and Accommodation Awards Program to honor the use of innovative practices and outstanding achievements in reducing the cost or shortening the time required to accommodate or relocate utilities associated with highway improvement projects. The goal of the program is to showcase exemplary and innovative projects, programs, initiatives, and practices that successfully integrate the consideration of utilities in the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of transportation facilities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, State Route 242/Clayton Road Ramps Project, on State Route 242, in the City of Concord, in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
California Department of Transportation, Attn: Cristin Hallissy, Environmental Branch, Chief Office of Environmental Analysis, MS-8B, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 622-8717,
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations.
3. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970, 23 U.S.C. 109.
4. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q)).
5. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
6.
7. Clean Water Act (Section 401) (33 U.S.C. 1251-1377) of 1977 and 1987
8. Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
9. Noise Control Act of 1972.
10. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice and Low-Income Populations.
11. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
12. Fair Housing Law (Title VIII of the Civil Right Act of 1968).
13. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
14. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303).
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by August 21, 2017.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2017-0128.
John Moulden, 202-493-3470, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Office of Corporate Research, Technology, and Innovation Management, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by August 21, 2017.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2017-0029.
Mark Ferroni, 202-366-3233, Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Reduction of highway traffic noise should occur through a program of shared responsibility with the most effective strategy being implementation of noise compatible planning and land use control strategies by state and local governments. Local governments can use their power to regulate land development to prohibit noise-sensitive land use development adjacent to a highway, or to require that developers plan, design, and construct development in ways that minimize noise impacts. The FHWA noise regulations limit Federal participation in the construction of noise barriers along existing highways to those projects proposed along lands where land development or substantial construction predated the existence of any highway.
The data reflects the flexibility in noise abatement decision-making. Some states have built many noise barriers while a few have built none. Through the end of 2010, 47 SDOTs and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have constructed over 2,748 linear miles of barriers at a cost of over $4.05 billion ($5.44 billion in 2010 dollars). Three states and the District of Columbia have not constructed noise barriers. Ten SDOTs account for approximately sixty-two percent (62%) of total barrier length and sixty-nine percent (69%) of total barrier cost. The type of information requested can be found in 23CFR772.13(f).
The previously distributed listing can be found at
This listing continues to be extremely useful in the management of the highway traffic noise program, in our technical assistance efforts for State highway agencies, and in responding to inquiries from congressional sources, Federal, State, and local agencies, and the general public. An updated listing of noise barriers will be distributed nationally for use in the highway traffic noise program. It is anticipated that this information will be requested in 2014 (for noise barriers constructed in 2011, 2012 and 2013) and then again in 2017 (for noise barriers constructed in 2014, 2015 and 2016). After review of the “Summary of Noise Barriers Constructed by December 31, 2004” document, a SDOT may request to delete, modify or add information to any calendar year.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that FHWA will submit the collection of information described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
Please submit comments by August 21, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID 2017-0026 by any of the following methods:
Michael Dougherty, 202-366-9234, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
OMB Control #: 2125-0541.
The estimated annual reporting burden is 102 hours; the estimated recordkeeping burden is 510 hours for a total of 612 hours. The 50 States and the District of Columbia share this burden. Preparing and processing the annual certification is estimated to require 2 hours per State. Recordkeeping is estimated to require an average of 10 hours per State.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 88 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions was applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2010-0413; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2014-0048; FMCSA-2015-0049; FMCSA-2015-0052 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 88 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 88 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement (70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 36099; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 21796; 74 FR 26461; 74 FR 26466; 74 FR 34630; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 65057; 75 FR 79081; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 12408; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 29022; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 37168; 76 FR 37173; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44082; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 26106; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 34140; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 51268; 78 FR 51269; 78 FR 57679; 79 FR 23797; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31636; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 31957; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 35699; 80 FR 36395; 80 FR 36398; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48409; 80 FR 48413). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below:
As of July 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 32 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 36099; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 21796; 74 FR 26466; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 65057; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 37173; 76 FR 37885; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 26106; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 57679; 79 FR 23797; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 14220; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 31957; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48409):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0327; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 2, 2017, and will expire on July 2, 2019.
As of July 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR 31636; 80 FR 48413):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2015-0049. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 7, 2017, and will expire on July 7, 2019.
As of July 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 41188; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 41188; 80 FR 33007):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0028. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 9, 2017, and will expire on July 9, 2019.
As of July 16, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR 26461; 74 FR 34630; 76 FR 1493; 76 FR 12408; 76 FR 37168; 78 FR 51269):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2009-0413; FMCSA-2009-0121. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 16, 2017, and will expire on July 16, 2019.
As of July 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2011-0102. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 22, 2017, and will expire on July 22, 2019.
As of July 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR 35699; 80 FR 48404):
The drivers were included docket No. FMCSA-2015-0052. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 23, 2017, and will expire on July 23, 2019.
As of July 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 25766; 76 FR 37885; 78 FR 37270; 80 FR 31640):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0092. Their exemptions are applicable as of July 31, 2017, and will expire on July 31, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the v\vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 88 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 132 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions was applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On April 17, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 132 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 18206). The public comment period ended on May 17, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 132 renewal exemption applications and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
As of May 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 16032; 78 FR 26107):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0014. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 3, 2017, and will expire on May 3, 2019.
As of May 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 16758; 78 FR 26422):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0012. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 6, 2017, and will expire on May 6, 2019.
As of May 8, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 50 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 18681; 80 FR 37716):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0315. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 8, 2017, and will expire on May 8, 2019.
As of May 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 38 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 17475; 76 FR 26792; 80 FR 18928; 80 FR 37726):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2011-0058; FMCSA-2015-0057. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 9, 2017, and will expire on May 9, 2019.
As of May 11, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0040. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 11, 2017, and will expire on May 11, 2019.
As of May 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Thomas G. Deke (MO) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (71 FR 17558; 71 FR 28913).
This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2006-24016. The exemption is applicable as of May 18, 2017, and will expire on May 18, 2019.
As of May 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 15578; 74 FR 24072):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2009-0067. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 22, 2017, and will expire on May 22, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the applicable date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Mack Trucks, Inc. (MTI), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017 Mack heavy duty trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120,
The closing date for comments on the petition is August 21, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of MTI's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
S5.2
(b) The rim size designation, and in case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.
In support of its petition, MTI referenced a letter to NHTSA, dated December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products (Arconic), which is the rim manufacturer, and provided the following:
1. A 24.5″ tire will not seat on the rim; therefore, if someone tries to mount a 24.5″ tire to the rim, it will not hold air and therefore cannot be inflated.
2. When tires are replaced, the technician will select the tire based on the size and rating of the tire being replaced. When Mack manufactured the vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5″ (
3. Mack is required to list the tires size and inflation pressures on the certification label as required by 49 CFR 567. The information printed on the label is the correct size, a 22.5″ tire and reflects the tires that were installed when manufactured. The certification label is located inside the driver's door and can be easily accessed by the tire installer.
MTI concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
To view MTI's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that MTI no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after MTI notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110,
For further information on this decision contact Kerrin Bressant, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-1110, facsimile (202) 366-5930.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110,
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period on December 20, 2016,
Approximately 6,773 MY 2015-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS 400 and Mercedes-Benz CLS 400 4MATIC motor vehicles manufactured between May 23, 2014 and April 21, 2016, are potentially involved.
MBUSA explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles have tire and loading information placards affixed to their B-pillars that incorrectly identify the maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo. Specifically, the Mercedes CLS 400 was manufactured with a tire and loading information placard that identifies a maximum combined weight of 420 kilograms (926 pounds) and the Mercedes CLS 400 4MATIC was manufactured with a tire and loading information placard that identifies a maximum combined weight of 355 kilograms (783 pounds). However, the maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo should be 315 kilograms (694 pounds) for the Mercedes CLS 400 and 325 kg (717 pounds) for the CLS 400 4MATIC. Therefore, the vehicles do not comply with paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110.
Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states:
S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through (g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. . . .
(a) Vehicle capacity weight expressed as “The combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds
MBUSA described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, MBUSA submitted the following reasoning:
(a) The tires originally equipped on the subject vehicles are able to carry the additional weight indicated on the tire and loading information placard. Further, the tire pressure detailed on the placard is sufficient to carry those weights. The maximum tire and vehicle load information detailed in the table below demonstrates that the tire is designed to carry a higher load than that which was incorrectly set out on the tire label:
(b) Should the driver follow the maximum combined weight of occupants and cargo displayed on the tire and information placard, motor vehicle safety is not negatively impacted. The vehicle platform (including chassis and axles) serves other CLS vehicle lines and is designed for vehicles with a higher gross vehicle weight rating (“GVWR”). The platform therefore can handle the potential additional weight.
(c) Subject vehicles are equipped with the B-pillar certification information label in accordance with 49 CFR part 567 indicating a GVWR of 2260 kilograms (4982 pounds) for vehicle type 218.365, the CLS 400, and a GVWR of 2330 kg (5137 pounds) for vehicle type 218.367, the CLS 400 4MATIC. The GVWR information detailed on the B-pillar certification information label is correct. Therefore, the driver can refer to this alternative source of information in order to determine the correct maximum load weight of the vehicle.
(d) After identifying the potentially incorrect values in the tire label, Daimler AG (DAG) analyzed potential technical implications, specifically with respect to the requirements of FMVSS No. 110, including potential effects on axles, suspension, brakes, driving dynamic, and crashworthiness. Based on this analysis, an impact on steering, braking or other vehicle dynamics as a result of the tire label weight discrepancy can be excluded.
(e) Moreover, MBUSA is not aware of any customer complaints, accidents or injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of this non-compliance. Hence, field data supports the assertion that the issue described above will have an inconsequential impact on safety.
MBUSA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
The maximum weight of a vehicle is determined by adding to the vehicle the manufacturer specified maximum weight of occupants and cargo. FMVSS No. 110, paragraph 4.3(a) requires that vehicles be labeled with a “Vehicle Capacity Weight (VCW)” value which is the specified maximum occupant and cargo weight that can be loaded into a vehicle. This value is equal to 68 kgs times the vehicle's designated seating capacity plus the rated cargo/payload of the vehicle. FMVSS No. 110, (S4.2.1.1 and S4.3.4(b)), requires that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire or greater than the load rating of the tire at the manufacturer specified cold inflation pressure listed on the tire and loading information placard.
For the subject vehicles, MBUSA noted that the VCW values on the placards are incorrect. The tire and information placard on the CLS 400 model vehicle specifies a 420 kg VCW which should have been 315 kg, an
In its' petition, MBUSA provided an analysis indicating the mounted tires on the subject vehicles are sufficient for carrying the maximum vehicle loads derived from the higher, incorrect, VCW values. For the CLS 400 vehicles the analysis indicates the tire load carrying capabilities exceed the maximum tire load by at least 147 kg (710 kg tire load rating minus 563 kg maximum tire load). For the CLS 400 4MATIC vehicles the analysis indicates the tire load carrying capabilities exceed the maximum tire load by at least 125 kg (709 kg tire load rating minus 584 kg maximum tire load). NHTSA verified the tire load ratings specified by MBUSA in accordance with the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) manual. As shown by MBUSA, the tire capacities are more than adequate to handle the additional weight of the higher VCW values. MBUSA's analysis shows that the tires mounted on the subject vehicles exceed the load requirements of FMVSS No. 110.
MBUSA also mentioned that the certification labels affixed to the subject vehicles provide the vehicle's gross axle weight ratings (GAWRs) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)in accordance with 49 CFR 567,
No comments were received during the receipt notice comment period.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that MBUSA no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after MBUSA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120,
The closing date for comments on the petition is August 21, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of VTNA's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
S5.2
(b) The rim size designation, and in case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.
In support of its petition, VTNA referenced a letter to NHTSA, dated December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products (Arconic), which is the rim manufacturer, and provided the following:
1. A 24.5″ inch tire will not seat on the rim; therefore, if someone tries to mount a 24.5″ tire to the rim, it will not hold air and therefore cannot be inflated.
2. When tires are replaced, the technician will select the tire based on the size and rating of the tire being replaced. When Volvo manufactured the vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5″ (
3. Volvo is required to list the tires size and inflation pressures on the certification label as required by 49 CFR 567. The information printed on the label is the correct size, a 22.5″ inch tire and reflects the tires that were installed when manufactured. The certification label is located inside the driver's door and can be easily accessed by the tire installer.
Volvo concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
To view VTNA's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that VTNA no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after VTNA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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 collections and their expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before August 21, 2017.
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (NEF-230), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, West Building, 4th Floor, Room W43-481, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
This information collection is necessary to ensure that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards identify themselves and their products to NHTSA so that NHTSA may contact them in the event that one of their products is suspected or found to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable FMVSS. Manufacturers of defective or noncompliant motor vehicles or replacement motor vehicle equipment are required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 to furnish notification of the defect or noncompliance to the Secretary of Transportation, and as well as to owners, purchasers, and dealers of the motor vehicle or replacement equipment, and to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the owner.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Freightliner trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101,
For further information on this decision contact Stu Seigel, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5287, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on April 7, 2017, in the
Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 provides, in pertinent part: “. . . each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2.”
In support of its petition, DTNA submitted the following reasoning:
(a) DTNA notes that the purpose of the low brake air pressure telltale is to alert the driver to a low air condition, consistent with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, S5.1.5 (warning signal). The word “BRAKE” instead of “BRAKE AIR,” together with a message on the display screen saying “LOW AIR!” and an audible alert that occurs in the subject vehicles would alert the driver to an air issue with the brake system. Once alerted, the driver can check the actual air pressure by reading the primary and secondary air gauges and seeing the contrasting color on the gauges indicating low pressure.
(b) NHTSA stated in a 2005 FMVSS No. 101 rulemaking that the reason for including vehicles over 10,000 pounds in the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 is that there is a need for drivers of heavier vehicles to see and identify their displays, just as there is for drivers of lighter vehicles. See 70 FR 48295, 48298 (Aug. 17, 2005). The telltale in the subject vehicles saying “BRAKE” and the message on the display screen that says “LOW AIR!” would allow the driver to see and identify the improper functioning system as was the intent of the rule, thus serving the purpose of the FMVSS No. 101 requirement.
(c) Drivers of commercial vehicles would conduct daily pre-trip
(d) There are two scenarios when a low brake air pressure condition would exist: A parked vehicle and a moving vehicle. Each of these are discussed separately below; in each scenario, there is ample warning provided to the driver of low brake air pressure.
The driver of an air-braked vehicle must ensure that the vehicle has enough brake air pressure to operate safely. At startup, the vehicle will likely be in a low air condition. When in a low air condition the following warnings would occur, conditioning the driver over time as to the purpose of the telltale, message and audible alerts and under what conditions they are activated.
If a low brake air pressure situation occurs while driving, the function of the service brakes may be reduced or lost and, eventually if the pressure gets low enough, the parking brakes will engage. The driver must pull to the side of the road and apply the parking brakes as soon as possible. A loss of brake air pressure while driving represents a malfunctioning brake system and requires immediate action from the driver. Drivers recognize that a telltale illuminated in red represents a malfunction which needs to be remedied.
The following warning would occur if a low air condition occurred while driving.
(e) The functionality of both the parking brake system and the service brake system remains unaffected by the “BRAKE” telltale used in the subject vehicles.
(f) NHTSA Precedents—DTNA notes that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for decisions of inconsequential noncompliance for similar brake telltale issues. See Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0004, 78 FR 69931 (November 21, 2013) (grant of petition for Ford Motor Company) and Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0046, 79 FR 78559 (December 30, 2014) (grant of petition for Chrysler Group, LLC). In both of these instances, the vehicles at issue did not have the exact wording as required under FMVSS No. 101. The available warnings were deemed sufficient to provide the necessary driver warning. DTNA respectfully suggest that the same is true for the subject vehicles: The red “BRAKE” telltale and the “LOW AIR!” pop-up message, together with other warnings and alerts, are fully sufficient to warn the driver of a low brake air pressure situation.
DTNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
1. When a low air pressure situation exists, for both a parked or moving vehicle, the “Brake” telltale will activate in red letters with a black background. There are no requirements in FMVSS No. 101 or 121 for the color of the telltale, but DTNA's use of red, which is an accepted color representing an urgent condition, provides a definitive indication of a situation that needs attention.
2. Activation of the “Brake” telltale is accompanied by illumination on the instrument cluster message display screen with the words “LOW AIR!” in white, upper case lettering with a green background. The height of the lettering appears greater than that of the surrounding telltales and is followed by an exclamation point for increased importance. In a follow-up telephone conversation with DTNA after notice of receipt of petition was published, DTNA confirmed that the lettering height was one quarter inch. Although there is no lettering height requirement for “Brake Air,” and the specification is only that the warning be visible, for reference, a common minimum height for many FMVSS visual indicators is one-eighth inch. This combined with the green rectangular background, which also is comparatively large, is readily visible to the operator and is unlikely to be overlooked. Both the “BRAKE” telltale and the “LOW AIR!” message are in clear view of the driver and when activated will alert the driver of a brake system malfunction.
3. Simultaneous to illumination of both the “Brake” telltale and “LOW AIR!” in the message center, is activation of an audible alert, further notifying the operator that a malfunction exists requiring corrective action. Although the alert would not in and of itself identify the problem, a driver would be prompted by the warning tone to heed the telltales and warning messages activated in the instrument cluster (
4. In a low pressure situation, the operator is provided additional feedback by the primary and secondary instrument cluster air gauges which are marked with PSI numerical values along with red-delineated ranges where the needle pointers would be positioned during a low pressure condition.
5. NHTSA agrees with DTNA that for a vehicle that is parked, if a low air condition were present, along with the operator feedback described above, there would be difficulty or an inability to release the parking brake and/or reduced drivability, as sufficient air in the system is required to release the parking brake.
6. Further, NHTSA agrees with DTNA's contention that the functionality of the parking brake system and the braking performance of the service brake system remains unaffected by use of the telltale word
7. Lastly, NHTSA believes that, as these affected trucks are predominately used as commercial vehicles with professional drivers, operators will monitor their vehicle's condition and take note of any warning signs and gauge readings to ensure proper functionality of all systems. As DTNA states, and we agree, drivers will be familiar with the meaning of telltales and other warnings and the feedback provided to the driver in these vehicles if a low brake pressure condition exists would be well understood.
NHTSA concludes that simultaneous activation of red “Brake” telltale with a black contrasting background, message center wording “LOW AIR!” in large white letters on a substantially sized green contrasting background, and an audible alert for a low air pressure condition, along with the primary and secondary air gauge indicators, and the reduced drivability of the vehicles under a low air pressure condition, provides adequate notification to the operator that a brake malfunction exists. NHTSA further concludes that the discrepancy with the labeling requirement is unlikely to lead to any misunderstanding since other sources of correct information beyond the “Brake” telltale, are always provided.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that DTNA no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after DTNA notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes the collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2017-0051 using any of the following methods:
Each submission must include the agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Kathy J. Sifrit, Contracting Officer's Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-320), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W46-466, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's phone number is 202-366-0868, and her email address is
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on the following proposed collection of information:
Study participation will be voluntary and will be solicited among residents of residential communities, senior centers, and/or service- or faith-based organizations in the southeastern Pennsylvania area through community newsletters and other community media. Interested older adults will attend a public meeting to learn about the research opportunity including inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the meeting, interested older adults will provide their name and telephone number on a signup sheet. A project assistant will then call individuals on the signup sheet and conduct a brief telephone pre-screening to ensure that all participants meet inclusion and exclusion criteria; the project assistant will also answer questions about study participation. For interested candidate participants who meet inclusion criteria, the project assistant will make appointments to conduct either a controlled, off-road backing performance evaluation or a training protocol evaluation, at a mutually convenient time. At the beginning of the appointment, the project assistant will obtain a signature from each participant on an informed consent. A driving rehabilitation specialist (DRS) will then conduct the off-road backing performance evaluation or training protocol evaluation. Participants will then receive compensation of $100 for study participation.
Throughout the project, the privacy of all participants would be protected. Access to the participants' data would be controlled using password-protection for both the computer and the files. Personally-identifiable information, such as participants' postal addresses, would be kept separate from the data collected and would be stored in a wall safe in password-protected folders on an external hard drive that is only accessible to study staff who need to access such information. In addition, all participant data would be reported in aggregate, and identifying information would not be used in any reports resulting from this data collection effort. Rigorous de-identification procedures would be used to prevent participants from being identified through reconstructive means.
A 2014 final rule issued by NHTSA (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, “Rear visibility”) requires rear visibility technology in all new vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) under 10,000 pounds by May 2018, but the anticipated safety gains depend in part on the extent to which drivers understand and use the technology as intended. This study has two purposes. The first purpose is to assess the driving performance of adults 50 and older using mirrors and an RVS while operating a motor vehicle in reverse. The second purpose is to develop, implement, and assess the effectiveness of an RVS training protocol. Findings will provide information about whether people ages 50 and older differ in backing performance when using RVS versus only mirrors, whether elements of RVS use are particularly difficult for this cohort, and whether RVS training improves older drivers' ability to avoid obstacles while backing. NHTSA will use the information to inform recommendations to the driving public regarding safe backing practices.
44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would revise the Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS) and the Medicare ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payment system for CY 2018 to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems and certain provisions under the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255). In this proposed rule, we describe the proposed changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare services paid under the OPPS and those paid under the ASC payment system. In addition, this proposed rule would update and refine the requirements for the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program and the ASC Quality Reporting (ASCQR) Program.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1678-P when commenting on the issues in this proposed rule. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):
1. Electronically. You may (and we encourage you to) submit electronic comments on this regulation to
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY:
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments via express or overnight mail to the following address ONLY:
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments before the close of the comment period to either of the following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call the telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, we refer readers to the beginning of the
(We note that public comments must be submitted through one of the four channels outlined in the
Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP Panel), contact the HOP Panel mailbox at
Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System, contact Elisabeth Daniel at 410-786-0237 or via email
Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality Reporting (ASCQR) Program Administration, Validation, and Reconsideration Issues, contact Anita Bhatia at 410-786-7236 or via email
Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality Reporting (ASCQR) Program Measures, contact Vinitha Meyyur at 410-786-8819 or via email
Blood and Blood Products, contact Josh McFeeters at 410-786-9732 or via email
Cancer Hospital Payments, contact Scott Talaga at 410-786-4142 or via email
Care Management Services, contact Scott Talaga at 410-786-4142 or via email
CPT Codes, contact Marjorie Baldo at 410-786-4617 or via email
CMS Web Posting of the OPPS and ASC Payment Files, contact Chuck Braver at 410-786-6719 or via email
Composite APCs (Low Dose Brachytherapy and Multiple Imaging), contact Twi Jackson at 410-786-1159 or via email
Comprehensive APCs (C-APCs), contact Lela Strong at 410-786-3213 or via email
Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program Administration, Validation, and Reconsideration Issues, contact Anita Bhatia at 410-786-7236 or via email
Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program Measures, contact Vinitha Meyyur at 410-786-8819 or via email
Hospital Outpatient Visits (Emergency Department Visits and Critical Care Visits), contact Twi Jackson at 410-786-1159 or via email
Inpatient Only (IPO) Procedures List, contact Lela Strong at 410-786-3213 or via email
New Technology Intraocular Lenses (NTIOLs), contact Scott Talaga at 410-786-4142 or via email
No Cost/Full Credit and Partial Credit Devices, contact Twi Jackson at 410-786-1159 or via email
OPPS Brachytherapy, contact Scott Talaga at 410-786-4142 or via email
OPPS Data (APC Weights, Conversion Factor, Copayments, Cost-to-Charge Ratios (CCRs), Data Claims, Geometric Mean Calculation, Outlier Payments, and Wage Index), contact Erick Chuang
OPPS Drugs, Radiopharmaceuticals, Biologicals, and Biosimilar Products, contact Elisabeth Daniel at 410-786-0237 or via email
OPPS New Technology Procedures/Services, contact the New Technology APC email at
OPPS Exceptions to the 2 Times Rule, contact Marjorie Baldo at 410-786-4617 or via email
OPPS Packaged Items/Services, contact Elisabeth Daniel at 410-786-0237 or via email
OPPS Pass-Through Devices, contact the Device Pass-Through email at
OPPS Status Indicators (SI) and Comment Indicators (CI), contact Marina Kushnirova at 410-786-2682 or via email
Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP) and Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) Issues, contact the PHP Payment Policy Mailbox at
Potential Revisions to the Laboratory Date of Service Policy, contact Rasheeda Johnson at 410-786-3434 or via email
Rural Hospital Payments, contact Josh McFeeters at 410-786-9732 or via email
Skin Substitutes, contact Josh McFeeters at 410-786-9732 or via email
All Other Issues Related to Hospital Outpatient and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payments Not Previously Identified, contact Lela Strong at 410-786-3213 or via email
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of the rule, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
This
In the past, a majority of the Addenda referred to in our OPPS/ASC proposed and final rules were published in the
In this proposed rule, we are proposing to update the payment policies and payment rates for services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) beginning January 1, 2018. Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to annually review and update the payment rates for services payable under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). Specifically, section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to review certain components of the OPPS not less
•
We are proposing to continue to implement the statutory 2.0 percentage point reduction in payments for hospitals failing to meet the hospital outpatient quality reporting requirements, by applying a proposed reporting factor of 0.980 to the OPPS payments and copayments for all applicable services.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In sections XIX. and XX. of this proposed rule, we set forth a detailed analysis of the regulatory and Federalism impacts that the proposed changes would have on affected entities and beneficiaries. Key estimated impacts are described below.
Table 38 in section XIX. of this proposed rule displays the distributional impact of all the proposed OPPS changes on various groups of hospitals and CMHCs for CY 2018 compared to all estimated OPPS payments in CY 2017. We estimate that the proposed policies in this proposed rule would result in a 1.9 percent overall increase in OPPS payments to providers. We estimate that proposed total OPPS payments for CY 2018, including beneficiary cost-sharing, to the approximate 3,900 facilities paid under the OPPS (including general acute care hospitals, children's hospitals, cancer hospitals, and CMHCs) would increase by approximately $897 million compared to CY 2017 payments, excluding our estimated changes in enrollment, utilization, and case-mix.
We estimated the isolated impact of our proposed OPPS policies on CMHCs because CMHCs are only paid for partial hospitalization services under the OPPS. Continuing the provider-specific structure that we adopted beginning in CY 2011 and basing payment fully on the type of provider furnishing the service, we estimate a 2.1 percent increase in CY 2018 payments to CMHCs relative to their CY 2017 payments.
We estimate that our proposed update of the wage indexes based on the FY 2018 IPPS proposed rule wage indexes results in no change for urban and rural hospitals under the OPPS. These wage indexes include the continued implementation of the OMB labor market area delineations based on 2010 Decennial Census data.
There are no significant impacts of our proposed CY 2018 payment policies for hospitals that are eligible for the rural adjustment or for the cancer hospital payment adjustment. We are not proposing to make any change in policies for determining the rural hospital payment adjustments. While we are implementing the required reduction to the cancer hospital payment adjustment in Section 16002 of the 21st Century Cures Act for CY 2018, the adjustment amounts do not significantly impact the budget neutrality adjustments for these policies.
We estimate that, for most hospitals, the application of the proposed OPD fee schedule increase factor of 1.75 percent to the conversion factor for CY 2018 would mitigate the impacts of the budget neutrality adjustments. As a result of the OPD fee schedule increase factor and other budget neutrality adjustments, we estimate that rural and urban hospitals would experience increases of approximately 2.0 percent for urban hospitals and 2.0 percent for rural hospitals. Classifying hospitals by teaching status or type of ownership suggests that these hospitals would receive similar increases.
For impact purposes, the surgical procedures on the ASC list of covered procedures are aggregated into surgical specialty groups using CPT and HCPCS code range definitions. The proposed percentage change in estimated total payments by specialty groups under the proposed CY 2018 payment rates compared to estimated CY 2017 payment rates ranges between 5 percent for integumentary system procedures and 1 percent for genitourinary system procedures.
We do not expect our proposed CY 2018 policies to significantly affect the number of hospitals that do not receive a full annual payment update.
We do not expect our proposed CY 2018 policies to significantly affect the number of ASCs that do not receive a full annual payment update.
When Title XVIII of the Social Security Act was enacted, Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services was based on hospital-specific costs. In an effort to ensure that Medicare and its beneficiaries pay appropriately for services and to encourage more efficient delivery of care, the Congress mandated replacement of the reasonable cost-based payment methodology with a prospective payment system (PPS). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33) added section 1833(t) to the Act authorizing implementation of a PPS for hospital outpatient services. The OPPS was first implemented for services furnished on or after August 1, 2000. Implementing regulations for the OPPS are located at 42 CFR parts 410 and 419.
The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) (Pub. L. 106-113) made major changes in the hospital OPPS. The following Acts made additional changes to the OPPS: The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554); the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173); the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171), enacted on February 8, 2006; the Medicare Improvements and Extension Act under Division B of Title I of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (MIEA-TRHCA) (Pub. L. 109-432), enacted on December 20, 2006; the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) (Pub. L. 110-173), enacted on December 29, 2007; the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Pub. L. 110-275), enacted on July 15, 2008; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148), enacted on March 23, 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152), enacted on March 30, 2010 (these two public laws are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act); the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (MMEA, Pub. L. 111-309); the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (TPTCCA, Pub. L. 112-78), enacted on December 23, 2011; the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
Under the OPPS, we pay for hospital Part B services on a rate-per-service basis that varies according to the APC group to which the service is assigned. We use the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) (which includes certain Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes) to identify and group the services within each APC. The OPPS includes payment for most hospital outpatient services, except those identified in section I.C. of this proposed rule. Section 1833(t)(1)(B) of the Act provides for payment under the OPPS for hospital outpatient services designated by the Secretary (which includes partial hospitalization services furnished by CMHCs), and certain inpatient hospital services that are paid under Medicare Part B.
The OPPS rate is an unadjusted national payment amount that includes the Medicare payment and the beneficiary copayment. This rate is divided into a labor-related amount and a nonlabor-related amount. The labor-related amount is adjusted for area wage differences using the hospital inpatient wage index value for the locality in which the hospital or CMHC is located.
All services and items within an APC group are comparable clinically and with respect to resource use (section 1833(t)(2)(B) of the Act). In accordance with section 1833(t)(2) of the Act, subject to certain exceptions, items and services within an APC group cannot be considered comparable with respect to the use of resources if the highest median cost (or mean cost, if elected by the Secretary) for an item or service in the APC group is more than 2 times greater than the lowest median cost (or mean cost, if elected by the Secretary) for an item or service within the same APC group (referred to as the “2 times rule”). In implementing this provision, we generally use the cost of the item or service assigned to an APC group.
For new technology items and services, special payments under the OPPS may be made in one of two ways. Section 1833(t)(6) of the Act provides for temporary additional payments, which we refer to as “transitional pass-through payments,” for at least 2 but not more than 3 years for certain drugs, biological agents, brachytherapy devices used for the treatment of cancer, and categories of other medical devices. For new technology services that are not eligible for transitional pass-through payments, and for which we lack sufficient clinical information and cost data to appropriately assign them to a clinical APC group, we have established special APC groups based on costs, which we refer to as New Technology APCs. These New Technology APCs are designated by cost bands which allow us to provide appropriate and consistent payment for designated new procedures that are not yet reflected in our claims data. Similar to pass-through payments, an assignment to a New Technology APC is temporary; that is, we retain a service within a New Technology APC until we acquire sufficient data to assign it to a clinically appropriate APC group.
Section 1833(t)(1)(B)(i) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to designate the hospital outpatient services that are paid under the OPPS. While most hospital outpatient services are payable under the OPPS, section 1833(t)(1)(B)(iv) of the Act excludes payment for ambulance, physical and occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology services, for which payment is made under a fee schedule. It also excludes screening mammography, diagnostic mammography, and effective January 1, 2011, an annual wellness visit providing personalized prevention plan services. The Secretary exercises the authority granted under the statute to also exclude from the OPPS certain services that are paid under fee schedules or other payment systems. Such excluded services include, for example, the professional services of physicians and nonphysician practitioners paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS); certain laboratory services paid under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS); services for beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) that are paid under the ESRD prospective payment system; and services and procedures that require an inpatient stay that are paid under the hospital IPPS. We set forth the services that are excluded from payment under the OPPS in regulations at 42 CFR 419.22.
Under § 419.20(b) of the regulations, we specify the types of hospitals that are excluded from payment under the OPPS. These excluded hospitals include: Critical access hospitals (CAHs); hospitals located in Maryland and paid under the Maryland All-Payer Model; hospitals located outside of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; and Indian Health Service (IHS) hospitals.
On April 7, 2000, we published in the
Since initially implementing the OPPS, we have published final rules in the
Section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Act, as amended by section 201(h) of Public Law 106-113, and redesignated by section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 106-113, requires that we consult with an external advisory panel of experts to annually review the clinical integrity of the payment groups and their weights under the OPPS. In CY 2000, based on section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Act, the Secretary established the Advisory Panel on Ambulatory Payment Classification Groups (APC Panel) to fulfill this requirement. In CY 2011, based on section 222 of the PHS Act which gives discretionary authority to the Secretary to convene advisory councils and committees, the Secretary
On November 21, 2000, the Secretary signed the initial charter establishing the HOP Panel, and at that time named the APC Panel. This expert panel is composed of appropriate representatives of providers (currently employed full-time, not as consultants, in their respective areas of expertise), reviews clinical data, and advises CMS about the clinical integrity of the APC groups and their payment weights. Since CY 2012, the Panel also is charged with advising the Secretary on the appropriate level of supervision for individual hospital outpatient therapeutic services. The Panel is technical in nature, and it is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The current charter specifies, among other requirements, that: The Panel may advise on the clinical integrity of Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and their associated weights; may advise on the appropriate supervision level for hospital outpatient services; continues to be technical in nature; is governed by the provisions of the FACA; has a Designated Federal Official (DFO); and is chaired by a Federal Official designated by the Secretary. The Panel's charter was amended on November 15, 2011, renaming the Panel and expanding the Panel's authority to include supervision of ho