| Page Range | 34597-34789 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 34597 - Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States | |
| 82 FR 34672 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 34675 - Sunshine Act Meeting: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) | |
| 82 FR 34674 - Sunshine Act Meeting: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR) | |
| 82 FR 34707 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 34666 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients | |
| 82 FR 34664 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 82 FR 34655 - Sycamore Removal Site, Hollywood, CA; Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent | |
| 82 FR 34674 - A Performance Test Protocol for Closed System Transfer Devices Used During Pharmacy Compounding and Administration of Hazardous Drugs; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 34675 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 34711 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 34732 - In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade (and Other Aliases) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 34663 - Notification of a Public Meeting of the Chartered Science Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 34656 - Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets) for Use in Biofuel Production | |
| 82 FR 34655 - Coronet Industries, Inc.: Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, Notice of Settlement | |
| 82 FR 34745 - International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods | |
| 82 FR 34745 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to an Executive Order Issued on September 23, 2001, Titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” | |
| 82 FR 34719 - Point Bridge Capital, LLC, et al. | |
| 82 FR 34667 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10391-First Southern National Bank Statesboro, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 34668 - Notice of Termination-10314 Allegiance Bank of North America, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 34620 - Navigation Safety Advisory Council-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
| 82 FR 34672 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 34672 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 34732 - Union Pacific Railroad Company-Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption-The Kansas City Southern Railway Company | |
| 82 FR 34736 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Mychal Will | |
| 82 FR 34737 - Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Issuing a License to Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne), LLC for LauncherOne Launches at the Mojave Air and Space Port, Kern County, California | |
| 82 FR 34740 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards | |
| 82 FR 34748 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Decision Ready Claims (DRC) Exam Review | |
| 82 FR 34746 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Construction Provisions and Clauses 852.236-72, 852.236.80, 852.236-82, 852.236-83, 852.236-84 and 852.236-88 | |
| 82 FR 34748 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Sections 809.504(d) and Clause 852.209-70 | |
| 82 FR 34747 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-89, Buy American Act | |
| 82 FR 34612 - Safety Zone; Kosciuszko Bridge Approach Spans Demolition, Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, NY | |
| 82 FR 34694 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: United States Pharmacopeial Convention | |
| 82 FR 34695 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration | |
| 82 FR 34691 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cayman Chemical Company | |
| 82 FR 34696 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organic Consultants, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 34696 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 34695 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 34649 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 34630 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders and Rescission of Minor Alterations Anti-Circumvention Inquiry | |
| 82 FR 34696 - Workforce Information Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 34652 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 34686 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1076-0178; Native American Business Development Institute (NABDI) Funding Solicitations and Reporting | |
| 82 FR 34733 - Winamac Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Kokomo, Howard County, Ind.; US Rail Holdings, LLC-Abandonment Exemption-in Kokomo, Howard County, Ind. | |
| 82 FR 34650 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 34697 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Manlifts Standard | |
| 82 FR 34701 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 82 FR 34699 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards | |
| 82 FR 34698 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Certification and Qualification To Examine, Test, Operate Hoists and Perform Other Duties | |
| 82 FR 34672 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 34734 - Charter Renewal of the Regional Energy Resource Council | |
| 82 FR 34685 - Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act-Debenture Interest Rates | |
| 82 FR 34649 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 34616 - Request for Information; Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees | |
| 82 FR 34682 - Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry | |
| 82 FR 34650 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 34677 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single-Source Non-Competing Continuation Application To Fund Grant Number 90DN0295 University of Massachusetts for an Additional 12 Months | |
| 82 FR 34678 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single-Source Non-Competing Continuation Application To Fund Grant Number 90DN0296 the University of Colorado for an Additional 12 Months | |
| 82 FR 34678 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single-Source Non-Competing Continuation Application to the University of Minnesota for an Additional 12 Months | |
| 82 FR 34632 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Gary Paxton Industrial Park Dock Modification Project | |
| 82 FR 34690 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Federal Firearms Licensee Firearms Inventory Theft/Loss Report-ATF F 3310.11 | |
| 82 FR 34681 - Patient Engagement Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 34667 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10510-First National Bank of Crestview, Crestview, Florida | |
| 82 FR 34671 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10124-Jennings State Bank, Spring Grove, Minnesota | |
| 82 FR 34679 - Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers Related to Self-Identification of Facilities, Review of Generic Drug Submissions, and Inspections and Compliance; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 34680 - Consumer Antiseptic Wash Final Rule Questions and Answers; Guidance for Industry; Small Entity Compliance Guide; Availability | |
| 82 FR 34647 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); Part 251, Use of Government Sources by Contractors | |
| 82 FR 34706 - Notice of Intent To Hold International Space Station Stakeholder Workshop | |
| 82 FR 34648 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); Evaluation Factor for Use of Members of the Armed Forces Selected Reserve | |
| 82 FR 34647 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Small Business Programs | |
| 82 FR 34655 - Belle Fourche Pipeline Company, Bridger Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 82 FR 34653 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 34653 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-523); Comment Request; Revision and Extension | |
| 82 FR 34654 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 34688 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Procedures for State, Tribal, Local, Plans & Grants | |
| 82 FR 34611 - Branded Prescription Drug Fee | |
| 82 FR 34601 - Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit | |
| 82 FR 34688 - Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota) | |
| 82 FR 34684 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 34685 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 34721 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Qualification Criteria Under the Qualified Market Maker Program at Rule 7014 | |
| 82 FR 34727 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 912 | |
| 82 FR 34728 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 912 | |
| 82 FR 34716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 6896 and Chapter IX, Section 9 | |
| 82 FR 34715 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 912 | |
| 82 FR 34716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 3, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the USCF Canadian Crude Oil Index Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 34728 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Non-Regular Way Trading on the Exchange | |
| 82 FR 34717 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Disaster Recovery | |
| 82 FR 34723 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Market Maker Quotations | |
| 82 FR 34624 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year 2017 | |
| 82 FR 34623 - Notice of Intent To Review Online Homeownership Education Courses for Nationwide Use in the Single Family Housing Section 502 Direct Loan Program | |
| 82 FR 34712 - Revision to Mailing Standards for Lithium Batteries | |
| 82 FR 34667 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10072-Mirae Bank, Los Angeles, California | |
| 82 FR 34671 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10453-Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 34667 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10335-The First State Bank, Camargo, Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 34712 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 34688 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Utah | |
| 82 FR 34668 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0099; -0118; -0148 and -0153) | |
| 82 FR 34684 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 34683 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 34683 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 34732 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Tennessee | |
| 82 FR 34731 - MISSOURI Disaster Number MO-00081 | |
| 82 FR 34731 - ARKANSAS Disaster Number AR-00096 | |
| 82 FR 34733 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 82 FR 34734 - Projects Rescinded for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 82 FR 34652 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 34738 - Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34738 - Twentieth RTCA SC-227 Standards of Navigation Performance Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34736 - Thirtieth First RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34735 - Fifty First RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34737 - Twenty Third RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34736 - Thirty Fourth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Plenary Joint With EUROCAE WG-79 | |
| 82 FR 34735 - Forty Eighth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34739 - Eighty Fifth RTCA Meeting of Special Committee 147 (Joint Plenary Session With EUROCAE WG-75) | |
| 82 FR 34739 - Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary | |
| 82 FR 34671 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 34792 - Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen | |
| 82 FR 34619 - Regulatory Planning and Review of Existing Regulations | |
| 82 FR 34615 - Juice Products Association; Filing of Food Additive Petition | |
| 82 FR 34615 - Zinpro Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) | |
| 82 FR 34752 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons and Bag and Possession Limits for Certain Migratory Game Birds | |
| 82 FR 34707 - License Modification Order: Fansteel, Inc. and FMRI (a Subsidiary of Reorganized Fansteel) | |
| 82 FR 34682 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery |
Rural Housing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations relating to the health insurance premium tax credit. These regulations affect individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Affordable Insurance Exchanges (Exchanges, also called Marketplaces) and claim the premium tax credit and Exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals.
Suzanne R. Sinno and Stephen J. Toomey at (202) 317-4718 and Shareen S. Pflanz at (202) 317-7006 (not toll-free numbers).
This document contains final regulations that amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to the health insurance premium tax credit and under section 162(l) of the Code relating to the deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals. The Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations under section 36B (TD 9590) on May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30385). These regulations were amended in 2014 by TD 9663, published on May 7, 2014 (79 FR 26117); in 2015 by TD 9745, published on December 18, 2015 (80 FR 78974); and in 2016 by TD 9804, published on December 19, 2016 (81 FR 91755).
On July 24, 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final and temporary regulations under section 36B and section 162(l) (TD 9683) in the
Section 36B provides a refundable premium tax credit to help individuals and families afford health insurance purchased through an Exchange. To be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B, section 36B(a) provides that an individual must be an applicable taxpayer. Section 36B(c)(1) defines an applicable taxpayer to mean a taxpayer (1) with household income for the taxable year that equals or exceeds 100 percent but does not exceed 400 percent of the federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size, (2) who may not be claimed as a dependent by another taxpayer, and (3) who files a joint return if married (within the meaning of section 7703).
Section 1.36B-2T(b)(2)(i) provides that except as provided in § 1.36B-2T(b)(2)(ii), a married taxpayer is an applicable taxpayer allowed a premium tax credit only if the taxpayer files a joint return with his or her spouse. Under § 1.36B-2T(b)(2)(ii), a married taxpayer satisfies the joint filing requirement if the taxpayer files a tax return using a filing status of married filing separately and the taxpayer (i) is living apart from his or her spouse at the time the taxpayer files his or her tax return, (ii) is unable to file a joint return because the taxpayer is a victim of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment, and (iii) certifies on his or her income tax return in accordance with the relevant forms and instructions that the taxpayer meets these criteria for claiming a premium tax credit using a filing status of married filing separately. Taxpayers may not qualify for relief from the joint filing requirement for a period that exceeds three consecutive years. See § 1.36B-2T(b)(2)(v). The preamble to the temporary regulations included a specific request for comments on these rules.
Comments were generally favorable with respect to the criteria for eligibility for relief from the married filing jointly requirement under the temporary regulations. For example, commenters agreed with the rule in the temporary regulations that victims of domestic violence are not required to contact their spouse as a condition for qualifying for relief from the married filing jointly requirement. Commenters also agreed that relief from the married filing jointly requirement should be available even if the abuse or abandonment occurs in a taxable year other than the taxable year for which a taxpayer seeks relief. A number of commenters requested clarification regarding when a taxpayer is considered a victim of spousal abandonment. The rule in § 1.36B-2T(b)(2)(iv) of the temporary regulations provides that a taxpayer is a victim of spousal abandonment for a taxable year if, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, the taxpayer is unable to locate his or her spouse after reasonable diligence. A number of commenters requested that the final regulations
The final regulations do not provide a definition of reasonable diligence. The IRS will take into account all the facts and circumstances in determining whether a taxpayer exercised reasonable diligence in trying to locate his or spouse. A “one size fits all” definition is not appropriate for situations involving spousal abandonment because the facts of each situation are unique. Providing a definition for reasonable diligence could have the unintended consequence of preventing a taxpayer who merits relief from the married filing jointly requirement from meeting the reasonable diligence standard solely because the definition did not contemplate the taxpayer's particular circumstances.
In addition, the final regulations do not broaden the “unable to locate” rule to include situations in which a spouse poses a threat to the taxpayer claiming relief because the definition of domestic abuse in § 1.36B-2T(a)(2)(iii), which includes psychological or emotional abuse and efforts to intimidate the victim, already addresses these circumstances. Finally, relief from the married filing jointly requirement is not suitable for all situations in which the spouse can be located but is uncooperative.
Several commenters requested that the IRS expand circumstances warranting relief from the married filing jointly requirement beyond domestic abuse and spousal abandonment. For instance, some commenters suggested that same-sex spouses who live in states that do not permit divorce for same-sex marriages, spouses living abroad, incarcerated spouses, and individuals who face challenges in filing a joint return because of their spouse's immigration status should also be eligible for relief from the married filing jointly requirement. Other commenters suggested that those eligible for relief because they are victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment should be able to file as single or head of household, rather than be limited to filing as married filing separately, citing the rules under section 6015 for innocent spouses as support for this position. Commenters also requested a one-year exception from the married filing jointly requirement for individuals who are separated but have not initiated a legal separation or divorce or who are in a long-term separation even if they are not victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment.
The final regulations do not expand relief from the married filing jointly requirement beyond domestic abuse and spousal abandonment. The relief finalized in these regulations is specifically tailored to address the limited and unique situations when the taxpayer is unable to file a joint return either because the taxpayer fears for his or her safety or, through no fault of the victim, can neither file a joint return because the non-filing spouse cannot be located nor obtain a divorce or legal separation because sufficient time has not lapsed under state law. In contrast, the circumstances described by the commenters do not warrant relief because the taxpayer is able to file a joint return.
Moreover, because the purposes of the innocent spouse rules and the rule in § 1.36B-2T(a)(2) for victims of domestic abuse and spousal abandonment are different, using the innocent spouse rules for domestic abuse or spousal abandonment victims is not appropriate. The innocent spouse rules provide relief from joint and several liability when a joint return is filed. In contrast, the relief provided in § 1.36B-2T(a)(2) allows a married victim of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment to claim a premium tax credit without filing a joint return. Therefore, because relief under § 1.36B-2T(a)(2) is available only for taxpayers who do not file a joint return, there is no need for the relief from joint and several liability provided by the innocent spouse rules.
Commenters also asked that the final regulations include a rule that would allow individuals who are (1) informally separated and (2) unable to locate their spouses, unwilling to contact them, or unaware of how filing separately could impact their eligibility for advance credit payments and the premium tax credit, to take advantage of the relief from the joint filing requirement for one year. The final regulations do not adopt this comment. First, the regulations already include a rule for taxpayers who cannot file jointly because the taxpayer is unable to locate his or her spouse. Further, regarding the comment about taxpayers being unaware of how filing separately could impact their eligibility for advance credit payments and the premium tax credit, the IRS has included information on
One commenter asked that the final regulations allow temporary relief from the joint filing requirement for victims of domestic violence who, when enrolling for coverage, plan to leave their spouse but want to have insurance coverage in place before they leave. Another commenter requested that relief from the joint filing requirement apply to a victim of domestic abuse who lives with his or her spouse and whose spouse could, but refuses to, enroll the victim in the spouse's employer's health coverage.
The relief in the temporary regulations applies to victims of spousal abuse who live with their spouse when enrolling in Marketplace health insurance, but who live apart from the spouse at the time of filing their tax return and cannot file a joint return because of the abuse. Thus, no additional relief rules are necessary for victims of domestic violence who are planning to leave their spouse but want to enroll in Marketplace coverage.
In addition, the final regulations do not adopt the suggestion that the relief from the joint filing requirement be extended to victims of domestic abuse who are planning to leave their spouses but have not yet done so at the time of filing their tax return. Only taxpayers who live apart from their spouse at the time the taxpayer files his or her tax return should be eligible to claim relief from the joint return filing requirement. The underlying basis of this relief is that while the taxpayer is technically married, the taxpayer is not able to file a joint return because they either fear contact with the spouse or the spouse cannot be located. In the case of a victim who lives with the spouse, filing a joint return is less challenging than if he or she lives apart from the spouse.
Finally, if a domestic abuse victim qualifies to use the married filing jointly exception, the victim is not precluded from getting a premium tax credit just because the victim's spouse could have, but refused to, enroll the victim in the spouse's employer's health coverage.
Under section 1412 of the Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), eligible taxpayers may receive the benefit of advance credit payments. Section 36B(f)(1) requires taxpayers who receive the benefit of advance credit payments for a taxable year to file a tax return and reconcile the advance credit payments with the premium tax credit the taxpayer is allowed for the taxable year. Under section 36B(f)(2)(A), the taxpayer's income tax liability is increased by the amount that the advance credit payments for the taxable year exceed the premium tax credit allowed for the taxable year, subject to the repayment limitations in section 36B(f)(2)(B). Section 1.36B-4(b) provides an alternative rule for reconciling the advance credit payments with the premium tax credit for taxpayers who marry during the taxable year (the year of marriage rule). Specifically, under § 1.36B-4(b)(2), taxpayers who marry during a taxable year may compute their excess advance credit payments (the excess of their advance credit payments over the premium tax credit they are allowed) in a manner that is different from the computation used by other taxpayers if, in the taxable year of the marriage, at least one of the spouses received the benefit of advance credit payments for one or more months in the taxable year. This alternative computation may reduce the amount of excess advance credit payments the taxpayers have to repay for the year of marriage.
Several commenters asked that the final regulations allow victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment who receive advance credit payments under the assumption that they will file a separate return, but who reconcile with their spouses and file a joint return for the taxable year, to use the year of marriage rule (or a rule similar to the year of marriage rule) to compute their excess advance credit payments. In particular, the commenters noted that these victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment risk having excess advance credit payments similar to taxpayers who get married during the taxable year.
The final regulations do not expand the year of marriage rule to cover these taxpayers, nor do they create a similar rule for victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment who reconcile, because of the risk of abuse in adding such a rule. Unlike the date of a marriage, which can be substantiated, the date on which a marital reconciliation occurs is often unclear and difficult to establish both for taxpayers and the IRS. This situation could lead to taxpayers not within the parameters of the rule nevertheless using it either because they do not understand when it applies or because they want to lower their excess advance credit repayment and do not believe the IRS will challenge their use of the rule. Moreover, these taxpayers may attempt to use the rule for multiple years. Finally, in many cases, section 36B(f)(2)(B) limits the tax liability that a taxpayer incurs from excess advance credit payments. Thus, the Treasury Department and the IRS think it is appropriate to limit the year of marriage rule to taxpayers who marry during the taxable year.
Section 1.36B-2T(a)(2)(v) provides that relief from the married filing jointly requirement is not available if the taxpayer satisfied the eligibility requirements of § 1.36B-2T(b)(2)(ii) for each of the three preceding taxable years. Commenters recommended that this limitation be removed from the final regulations. Alternatively, commenters recommended that the final regulations provide a “good cause” exception to the three-year limitation.
Based on IRS data, most taxpayers who claim relief from the joint filing requirement need that relief for only one year. Since 2014, the first tax year that relief from the joint return filing requirement was available to victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment, only 0.2 to 0.3 percent of all taxpayers claiming the premium tax credit requested relief. Further, fewer than 3 percent of the individuals who claimed relief in 2014 also claimed relief in 2015. Given that current data indicates that so few taxpayers are claiming relief, and that few of these taxpayers are requesting relief for more than one year, the additional two years provided by the rule in the temporary regulations appears to be sufficient to provide relief for the small number of taxpayers who would benefit from relief for more than one year.
Accordingly, at this time, there does not appear to be a need to extend the availability of this relief beyond three consecutive years. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS will continue to monitor the data. In the meantime, comments are requested regarding how the IRS would administer a process for taxpayers to request relief beyond the three consecutive years permitted under the regulations. Specifically, comments are requested regarding when and how a taxpayer would request a good cause exception and what standards should apply to determine whether a taxpayer has demonstrated good cause.
Commenters raised concerns related to IRS examinations of taxpayers who obtain relief. Several commenters said the IRS should ensure that taxpayers who use the relief for domestic abuse or spousal abandonment are not subject to audits or penalties solely due to a conflict between their marital status on their Marketplace health insurance application (unmarried) and their filing status on their tax return (married filing separately). Pursuant to the forms and instructions, taxpayers indicate to the IRS that they are filing their tax return married filing separately because they are a victim of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment by checking the appropriate box on the Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit. As noted by the commenters, some Marketplaces, including the Federally-facilitated Marketplace, instruct victims of domestic violence or spousal abandonment who intend to use the married filing separately filing status on their tax return, to indicate on their Marketplace application that they are unmarried if they want to receive the benefit of advance credit payments or cost-sharing reductions. Under HHS guidance dated July 27, 2015, these individuals are not subject to a penalty for reporting their marital status in this manner. See
Commenters also recommended that the final regulations describe the supporting documentation of domestic abuse that a taxpayer will need to establish that he or she was a victim of domestic abuse in case of an IRS examination of the taxpayer's return. Publication 974, Premium Tax Credit, provides examples of documentation that victims of domestic abuse may use to substantiate that they qualify for the relief. Publication 974 also includes substantiation information for victims of
Several commenters urged HHS to provide an open enrollment period if expanded rules for relief are adopted so taxpayers that are eligible for relief due to domestic abuse or spousal abandonment may enroll in a qualified health plan and get advance credit payments. Commenters also recommended that taxpayers be allowed a special enrollment period if the abuse or abandonment occurs during a taxable year for which the victim had not enrolled in a qualified health plan prior to the abuse or abandonment. Other commenters suggested that Marketplaces alert taxpayers on the health insurance application of the availability of relief from the joint filing requirement for victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment.
The rules regarding enrollment and Marketplace health insurance applications are administered by HHS, and thus these comments are outside the scope of these final regulations. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS will share these comments with HHS. In addition, taxpayers should refer to HHS guidance that provides victims of domestic abuse and spousal abandonment a special enrollment period to apply for Marketplace coverage. See 45 CFR 155.420. See also
Commenters requested that the IRS alert taxpayers regarding the operational limitations in the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace that require victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment who intend to file a return separate from their spouse and claim a premium tax credit to indicate that they are unmarried on their health insurance application. HHS, and not the IRS, regulates the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace. Therefore, HHS, and not the IRS, is in the best position to provide taxpayers with information regarding operation of the Marketplace. Moreover, HHS has made available instructions for taxpayers who, because they are victims of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment, intend to use the married filing separately status on their tax returns, but still want to have advance credit payments made for their Marketplace coverage. Thus, no changes to IRS instructions or other items available to taxpayers on
Numerous commenters suggested changes to IRS forms and instructions and the manner in which the forms and instructions should address the married filing jointly exception for victims of domestic abuse and spousal abandonment. Most of these suggestions were incorporated in the forms and instructions after the temporary regulations were published and, consequently, are not specifically discussed in this preamble.
One commenter suggested that taxpayers who are providing a copy of Form 8962 to parties other than the IRS, such as states when filing state tax returns, be allowed to omit or redact the married filing separately exception checkbox when sending the form to these non-IRS parties. IRS rules do not affect whether and in what format taxpayers share their own taxpayer information with third parties. Therefore, no change to the form, instructions, or proposed and temporary regulations is needed to address this comment.
Section 36B(f)(1) requires taxpayers who receive the benefit of advance credit payments for a taxable year to file a tax return and reconcile the advance credit payments with the premium tax credit the taxpayer is allowed for the taxable year. Section 1.36B-4T(a)(1)(ii) provides that a taxpayer must reconcile the advance credit payments of all members of the taxpayer's family for the taxable year with the premium tax credit the taxpayer is allowed for the taxable year. A taxpayer's family includes the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, and the taxpayer's dependents. See section 1.36B-1(d). Under section 36B(f)(2)(A), the taxpayer's income tax liability is increased by the amount that the advance credit payments for the taxable year exceed the premium tax credit allowed for the taxable year, subject to the repayment limitations in section 36B(f)(2)(B).
In some cases, a qualified health plan covers members of more than one family. To compute the premium tax credit and reconcile the advance credit payments with the premium tax credit allowed in these cases, each family needs to know the enrollment premiums, the premiums for the applicable benchmark plan, and the advance credit payments allocable to each family enrolled in the plan.
Section 1.36B-4T provides allocation rules for situations in which enrollment premiums, the premiums for the applicable benchmark plan, and advance credit payments (policy amounts) for a qualified health plan must be allocated between two or more families. The temporary regulations provide specific allocation rules depending on whether the situation involves married individuals who file separately, formerly married individuals who divorced or separated during the taxable year, or individuals such as children who are enrolled in a qualified health plan with one parent but are claimed as a dependent by the other parent who is not enrolled in the plan (a shifting enrollee). The allocation rules for divorced or separated taxpayers and for shifting enrollee situations allow the affected taxpayers to agree on an allocation percentage. However, if there is no agreement, divorced or separated taxpayers must allocate 50 percent of the enrollment premiums, applicable benchmark plan premiums, and advance credit payments to each of the former spouses. A taxpayer's default allocation percentage for shifting enrollee situations is equal to the number of shifting enrollees claimed as a personal exemption by the taxpayer divided by the total number of individuals enrolled by the enrolling taxpayer in the same qualified health plan as the shifting enrollee (per capita allocation). Married taxpayers who do not file a joint return must allocate 50 percent of the enrollment premiums and advance credit payments to each of the spouses, unless the payments cover a period during which a qualified health plan covered only one of the spouses, only one of the spouses and his or her dependents, or only dependents of one of the spouses. Finally, the temporary regulations provide that the premiums for the applicable benchmark plan must be allocated in situations involving divorced and separated taxpayers and shifting enrollees, but not in situations involving married filing separately taxpayers.
A commenter recommended that the allocation rules should be simplified, and, in particular, not provide different allocation rules for the various allocation situations. In addition, the commenter stated that the applicable benchmark plan premium should never be allocated. Instead, the commenter recommended that taxpayers should
Because the allocation rules have been in effect since 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that, in the interest of sound tax administration, it is not appropriate to change the rules in these final regulations. Thus, the final regulations do not change the allocation rules provided in the temporary regulations. However, future guidance is being considered to address allocations of policy amounts, including requiring a per capita allocation in all allocation situations as suggested by the commenter.
Another commenter recommended that because allocating policy amounts is complex, taxpayers should be alerted to the importance of notifying Marketplaces of changes in circumstances, which may reduce the number of months for which allocations are required. Currently, the Form 8962 instructions and Publication 974 include language highlighting the importance of reporting changes in circumstances, as does
Under section 162(l), a taxpayer who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) (generally, a self-employed individual) is allowed a deduction for all or a portion of the premiums paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year for health insurance for the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, the taxpayer's dependents, and any child of the taxpayer under the age of 27. Under section 162(l)(2)(A), the section 162(l) deduction is limited to the taxpayer's earned income from the trade or business, within the meaning of section 401(c), with respect to which the health insurance plan is established. In addition, section 280C(g) provides that no deduction is allowed under section 162(l) for the portion of premiums for a qualified health plan equal to the amount of the premium tax credit determined under section 36B(a) with respect to those premiums.
Section 1.36B-4T(a)(3)(iii) provides rules for the limitation on the additional tax under section 36B(f)(2)(B) (the limitation amount) for taxpayers who claim a section 162(l) deduction for premiums paid under a qualified health plan. Under § 1.36B-4T(a)(3)(iii)(B), the limitation amount determined under the rules for taxpayers claiming a section 162(l) deduction replaces the limitation amount that would otherwise be determined under the general rules of § 1.36B-4(a)(3)(ii). Under § 1.36B-4T(a)(3)(iii)(C), for purposes of determining the limitation amount in the case of a taxpayer who claims a section 162(l) deduction, a taxpayer's household income is determined by using a section 162(l) deduction equal to the sum of (1) specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments, (2) the limitation amount, and (3) any deduction allowable under section 162(l) for premiums other than specified premiums. Specified premiums are premiums for which the taxpayer may otherwise claim a deduction under section 162(l) for a qualified health plan covering the taxpayer or another member of the taxpayer's family (enrolled family member) for a month that a premium tax credit is allowed for the enrolled family member's coverage.
The limitation amount computation in § 1.36B-4T(a)(3)(iii)(C), however, inadvertently omitted a rule for situations in which a taxpayer's section 162(l) deduction must, under section 162(l)(2)(A), be limited to his or her earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established. The final regulations correct this oversight and clarify that household income for purposes of computing the limitation amount is determined by using a section 162(l) deduction equal to the lesser of (1) the sum of the specified premiums for the plan not paid through advance credit payments, the limitation amount, and any deduction allowable under section 162(l) for premiums other than specified premiums, or (2) the earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established.
For applicability dates, see §§ 1.36B-2(d), 1.36B-3(m), 1.36B-4(c), and 1.162(l)-1(c).
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Because the final regulations do not impose a collection of information requirement on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded the final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received.
The principal authors of these final regulations are Suzanne R. Sinno, Stephen J. Toomey, and Shareen S. Pflanz of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(d)
(m)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(C)
(3) * * *
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(4) * * *
(b) * * *
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(c)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(A) Is living apart from the taxpayer's spouse at the time the taxpayer files the tax return;
(B) Is unable to file a joint return because the taxpayer is a victim of domestic abuse, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, or spousal abandonment, as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section; and
(C) Certifies on the return, in accordance with the relevant instructions, that the taxpayer meets the criteria of this paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) * * *
(C)
(d)
(g) * * * (1)
(m)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(C)
(3) * * *
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(D)
(E)
(4) * * *
(ii) In 2014, B and C do not claim L as their dependent (and no taxpayer claims a personal exemption deduction for L). Consequently, B's and C's family size for 2014 is three, their household income of $63,388 is 332 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family of three (applicable percentage 9.5), and the annual premium for their applicable benchmark plan is $12,000. Their premium tax credit for 2014 is $5,978 ($12,000 benchmark plan premium less $6,022 contribution amount (household income of $63,388 × .095)). Because B's and C's advance credit payments for 2014 are $8,535 and their 2014 credit is $5,978, B and C have excess advance payments of $2,557. B's and C's additional tax liability for 2014 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, however, is limited to $2,500 under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(ii) K lives with H for more than half of 2014 and H claims K as a dependent for 2014. G and H agree to an allocation percentage, as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(
(iii) If H is eligible for a premium tax credit, H takes into account $2,600 of the premiums for the plan in which K was enrolled ($13,000 x .20) and $2,400 of G's benchmark plan premium ($12,000 × .20). In addition, H is responsible for reconciling $1,287 ($6,434 × .20) of the advance credit payments for K's coverage.
(iv) G's family size for 2014 includes only G and J and G's household income of $58,900 is 380 percent of the Federal poverty line for a family of two (applicable percentage 9.5). G's benchmark plan premium for 2014 is $9,600 (the benchmark premium for the plan covering G, J, and K ($12,000), minus the amount allocated to H ($2,400). Consequently, G's premium tax credit is $4,004 (G's benchmark plan premium of $9,600 minus G's contribution amount of $5,596 ($58,900 × .095)). G has an excess advance payment of $1,143 (the excess of the advance credit payments of $5,147 ($6,434 − $1,287 allocated to H) over the premium tax credit of $4,004).
(ii) If H is eligible for a premium tax credit, H takes into account $4,290 of the premiums for the plan in which K was enrolled ($13,000 × .33). H, in computing H's benchmark plan premium, must include $3,960 of G's benchmark plan premium ($12,000 x .33). In addition, H is responsible for reconciling $2,123 ($6,434 x .33) of the advance credit payments for K's coverage.
(iii) G's benchmark plan premium for 2014 is $8,040 (the benchmark premium for the plan covering G, J, and K ($12,000), minus the amount allocated to H ($3,960). Consequently, G's premium tax credit is $2,444 (G's benchmark plan premium of $8,040 minus G's contribution amount of $5,596 ($58,900 × .095)). G has an excess advance credit payment of $1,867 (the excess of the advance credit payments of $4,311 ($6,434 − $2,123 allocated to H) over the premium tax credit of $2,444).
(ii) Because B received the benefit of advance credit payments and deducts premiums for a qualified health plan under section 162(l), B must determine whether B is allowed a limitation on additional tax under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. B begins by testing eligibility for the $600 limitation amount for taxpayers with household income at less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size. B determines household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line by taking a section 162(l) deduction equal to the lesser of $6,600 (the sum of the amount of premiums not paid through advance credit payments, $6,000 ($14,000 − $8,000), and the limitation amount, $600) and $75,000 (the earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established). The result is $97,100 ($103,700 − $6,600) or 412 percent of the Federal poverty line for B's family size. Since 412 percent is not less than 200 percent, B may not use a $600 limitation amount.
(iii) B performs the same calculation for the $1,500 ($103,700 − $7,500 = $96,200 or 408 percent of the Federal poverty line) and $2,500 limitation amounts ($103,700 − $8,500 = $95,200 or 404 percent of the Federal poverty line), the amounts for taxpayers with household income of less than 300 percent or 400 percent, respectively, of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size, and determines that B may not use either of those limitation amounts. Because B does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section for any of the limitation amounts in section 36B(f)(2)(B), B is not eligible for the limitation on additional tax for excess advance credit payments.
(iv) Although B may not claim a limitation on additional tax for excess advance credit payments, B may still be eligible for a premium tax credit. B would determine eligibility for the premium tax credit, the amount of the premium tax credit, and the section 162(l) deduction using the rules under section 36B and section 162(l), applying no limitation on additional tax.
(ii) Because B received the benefit of advance credit payments and deducts premiums for a qualified health plan under section 162(l), B must determine whether B is allowed a limitation on additional tax under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. B first determines that B does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section for using the $600 or $1,500 limitation amounts, the amounts for taxpayers with household income of less than 200 percent or 300 percent, respectively, of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size. That is because B's household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line, determined by using a section 162(l) deduction for premiums for the qualified health plan equal to the lesser of the sum of the premiums for the plan not paid through advance credit payments and the limitation amount, and the earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established, is more than the maximum household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line for which that limitation is available (using the $600 limitation, B's household income would be $72,202 ($78,802−($6,000 + $600)), which is 307 percent of the Federal poverty line for B's family size; and using the $1,500 limitation, B's household income would be $71,302 ($78,802−($6,000 + $1,500)), which is 303 percent of the Federal poverty line for B's family size).
(iii) However, B meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section using the $2,500 limitation amount for taxpayers with household income of less than 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size. That is because B's household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line by taking a section 162(l) deduction equal to the lesser of $8,500 (the sum of the amount of premiums not paid through advance credit payments, $6,000, and the limitation amount, $2,500) and $75,000 (the earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established), is $70,302 (299 percent of the Federal poverty line), which is below 400 percent of the Federal poverty line for B's family size, and is less than the maximum amount for which that limitation is available. Thus, B uses a limitation amount of $2,500 in computing B's additional tax on excess advance credit payments.
(iv) B may determine the amount of the premium tax credit and the section 162(l) deduction using the rules under section 36B and section 162(l), applying the $2,500 limitation amount determined above.
(ii) Because C received the benefit of advance credit payments and deducts premiums for a qualified health plan under section 162(l), C must determine whether C is allowed a limitation on additional tax under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. C begins by testing eligibility for the $600 limitation amount for taxpayers with household income at less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty line for the taxpayer's family size. C determines household income as a percentage of the Federal poverty line by taking a section 162(l) deduction equal to the lesser of $6,600 (the sum of the amount of premiums not paid through advance credit payments, $6,000 ($14,000−$8,000), and the limitation amount, $600), and $3,000 (C's earned income from the trade or business with respect to which the health insurance plan is established). The result is $36,100 ($39,100−$3,000) or 147 percent of the Federal poverty line for C's family size. Because 147 percent is less than 200 percent, the limitation amount under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section that C uses in computing C's additional tax on excess advance credit payments is $600.
(iii) C may determine the amount of the premium tax credit and the section 162(l) deduction using the rules under section 36B and section 162(l), applying the $600 limitation amount determined above.
(b) * * *
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(5) * * *
(i) The facts are the same as in
(ii) X must reconcile the amount of credit with advance credit payments under paragraph (a) of this section. The premium for the applicable benchmark plan covering X and his two dependents is $9,800. X's premium tax credit is computed as follows: $9,800 benchmark plan premium minus X's contribution amount of $5,700 ($60,000 × .095) equals $4,100.
(iii) Under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, half of the advance payments ($6,880/2 = $3,440) is allocated to X and half is allocated to Y. Thus, X is entitled to $660 additional premium tax credit ($4,100 − $3,440). Y has $3,440 excess advance payments, which is limited to $600 under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(i) A is married to B at the close of 2014 and they have no dependents. A and B are enrolled in a qualified health plan for 2014 with an annual premium of $10,000 and advance credit payments of $6,500. A is not eligible for minimum essential coverage (other than coverage described in section 5000A(f)(1)(C)) for any month in 2014. A is a victim of domestic abuse as described in § 1.36B-2(b)(2)(iii). At the time A files her tax return for 2014, A is unable to file a joint return with B for 2014 because of the domestic abuse. A certifies on her 2014 return, in accordance with relevant instructions, that she is living apart from B and is unable to file a joint return because of domestic abuse. Thus, under § 1.36B-2(b)(2)(ii), A satisfies the joint return filing requirement in section 36B(c)(1)(C) for 2014.
(ii) A's family size for 2014 for purposes of computing the premium tax credit is one, and A is the only member of her coverage family. Thus, A's benchmark plan for all months of 2014 is the second lowest cost silver plan offered by the Exchange for A's rating area that covers A. A's household income includes only A's modified adjusted gross income. Under paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, A takes into account $5,000 ($10,000 x .50) of the premiums for the plan in which she was enrolled in determining her premium tax credit. Further, A must reconcile $3,250 ($6,500 x .50) of the advance credit payments for her coverage under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
(c)
This section lists the table of contents for § 1.162(l)-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(i) The specified premiums less the premium tax credit attributable to the specified premiums; and
(ii) The sum of the specified premiums not paid through advance credit payments, as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the additional tax (if any) imposed under section 36B(f)(2)(A) and § 1.36B-4(a)(1) with respect to the specified premiums after application of the limitation on additional tax in section 36B(f)(2)(B) and § 1.36B-4(a)(3).
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that define the term
Rachel S. Smith at (202) 317-6855 (not a toll-free number).
The branded prescription drug fee was enacted by section 9008 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by section 1404 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010) (collectively the ACA). Section 9008 did not amend the Internal Revenue Code (Code) but cross-references specific Code sections.
On July 28, 2014, temporary regulations (TD 9684) relating to the fee on branded prescription drugs were published in the
Neither the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) nor the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received any written comments with respect to the notice of proposed rulemaking and no public hearing was requested or held. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations without change and the 2014 temporary regulations are removed.
The 2011 temporary regulations defined the term
The broader definition of the term
The 2014 temporary regulations applied beginning on January 1, 2015 (
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 impact assessment is not required. Because the final regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded the final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received on the proposed regulations.
The principal author of these final regulations is Rachel S. Smith, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 51 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805; sec. 9008, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119.
Section 51.8 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6302(a).
Section 51.6302-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6302(a).
(e) * * *
(3)
(b) Section 51.2(e)(3) applies on and after July 24, 2017.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Newtown Creek, NY within 2,000 feet of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during the explosives demolition of the approach spans on each adjacent shoreline. This rulemaking prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New York or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 26, 2017 through December 31, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 22, 2017 through July 26, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Sector New York Waterways Management Division; telephone 718-354-4195, email
The Coast Guard issued a Bridge Permit dated August 21, 2013 approving the location and construction of the Kosciuszko Bridge across Newtown Creek, mile 2.1, between the Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, NY. On April 25, 2017, NYSDOT notified the Coast Guard that the contractor requires a short term closure of Newtown Creek for the energetic felling of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge approach spans over land using shaped charges. The shaped charges make multiple precise cuts in the steel bridge spans at the same instant. This allows the approach spans to fall directly to the ground below. There will be no debris field outside of the limits of the bridge. The tentative, primary demolition dates are the early morning hours of July 22 or 23, 2017. The tentative back-up dates for these operations are the early morning hours of July 29 or 30, August 5 or 6, and August 12 or 13, 2017. To ensure public safety the contractor requested the USCG establish a safety zone within 600-feet of the existing bridge for a three-hour duration during these operations. NYSDOT stated FDNY was working with the explosives demolition subcontractor and would provide a final exclusion zone limit during these operations in early May 2017.
On May 15, 2017 the contractor notified the Coast Guard that the distance requested for the exclusion zone is 1,200 from the existing bridge during the explosives demolition. However, the subcontractor stated this is a preliminary distance for discussion purposes only. The final distance would not be provided until the contract is awarded and the subcontractor meets with NYSDOT, the general contractor, security forces, and other stakeholders. Due to this expanded distance and late notification the Coast Guard was unable to include this request within the existing bridge demolition rulemaking (Docket Number USCG-2016-1048) for this bridge replacement project. The safety zone distance is to ensure that persons are not exposed to air overpressure (noise) levels above the 140 decibel impact guidelines under OSHA regulations codified at 29 CFR 1910.95 Table G-16—PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES, Footnote 1. The Coast Guard proposes to make this rule enforceable through December 31, 2017, and to a greater distance (2,000 feet) than currently requested (1,200 feet), as a contingency for any unforeseen delays or revisions to the bridge approach spans demolition schedule or safety requirements based upon the final FDNY safety requirements.
The Coast Guard is making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with these operations will be a safety concern for anyone within up to 2,000-feet of the existing approach spans to the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1 over Newtown Creek. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of individuals on the navigable waters within up to 2,000 feet of the approach spans of the existing Kosciuszko Bridge before, during, and after the explosive demolition operations.
This rule establishes a safety zone from July 22 through December 31, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Newtown Creek within up to 2,000 feet of the existing approach spans to the Kosciuszko Bridge at mile 2.1 over Newtown Creek during the explosive demolition operations. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of individuals and these navigable waters before, during, and after the explosive demolition operations tentatively scheduled for the early morning hours on July 22 or 23, 2017. Backup dates for these operations are July 29 or 30, August 5 or 6, and August 12 or 13, 2017.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Although vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, enforcement of the safety zone will be limited in duration. The boundaries of the safety zone will be limited to the length upstream, and downstream, from the bridge as determined by FDNY for the explosives detonation to remain in compliance with existing OSHA Permissible Noise Exposure regulations. 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 section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard will rely on marine broadcasts and local notice to mariners to notify the public of the time and duration that the safety zone will be enforced. Violations of this safety zone may be reported to the COTP at 718-354-4353 or on VHF-Channel 16.
(d)
(2) During periods of enforcement, all persons and vessels must comply with all orders and directions from the COTP or a COTP's designated representative.
(3) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by the Juice Products Association, proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to replace the current Recommended Daily Intake (RDI) percentage values of calcium in fruit juices and fruit juice drinks in the regulation for vitamin D
The food additive petition was filed on June 1, 2017.
For access to the docket, go to
Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1071.
Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 7A4818), submitted on behalf of the Juice Products Association by Hogan Lovells US LLP, Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20004. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in § 172.380 (21 CFR 172.380)
These proposed changes would allow manufacturers of fruit juices and fruit juice drinks that are fortified with calcium to maintain the absolute level of added calcium at 330 milligrams (mg) and 130 mg, respectively, as established in our regulations at § 172.380(c)(1) and (2).
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(i) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment because the amendments are administrative in nature and permit manufacturers of fruit juices and fruit juice drinks that are fortified with calcium to maintain current calcium fortification levels in these products. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that Zinpro Corp. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of zinc-L-selenomethionine as a nutritional source of selenium in complete feed for laying hens and for the safe use of the approved food additive silicon dioxide as an anticaking agent for use with zinc-L-selenomethionine as a feed component.
The food additive petition was filed on June 1, 2017.
For access to the docket, go to
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2303) has been filed by Zinpro Corp., 10400 Viking Dr., Suite 240, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573 (21 CFR part 573)
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor.
Request for information.
The Department of Labor (Department) is seeking information from the public regarding the regulations located at 29 CFR part 541, which define and delimit exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements for certain executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees. The Department is publishing this Request for Information (RFI) to gather information to aid in formulating a proposal to revise the part 541 regulations.
Submit written comments on or before September 25, 2017.
To facilitate the receipt and processing of written comments on this RFI, the Department encourages interested persons to submit their comments electronically. You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA20, by either of the following methods:
Melissa Smith, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this RFI may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1 (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
Questions of interpretation and/or enforcement of the agency's regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866) 4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time zone, or log onto WHD's Web site at
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act) generally requires covered employers to pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour) for all hours worked, and overtime premium pay of not less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
For more than 75 years, the Department's part 541 regulations implementing the exemptions under Section 13(a)(1) of the Act have generally defined the terms “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” by the use of three criteria. With some exceptions, for an employee to be exempt: (1) The employee must be paid on a salary basis (“salary basis test”); (2) the employee must receive at least a minimum specified salary amount (“salary level test”); and (3) the employee's job must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the regulations (“duties test”).
The Department issued the initial part 541 regulations in October 1938, slightly less than four months after the FLSA became law. 3 FR 2518 (Oct. 20, 1938). These regulations established duties tests for executive, administrative, and professional employees, and also set a minimum compensation requirement of $30 per week for exempt executive and administrative employees. In 1940, the Department revised the part 541 regulations, establishing the salary basis test, retaining a $30 per week salary level for executive employees, and establishing a $50 per week ($200 per month) salary level for administrative and professional employees. 5 FR 4077 (Oct. 15, 1940). The Department again amended the part 541 regulations nine years later, in 1949, establishing a two-tier structure for assessing compliance with the salary level and duties tests. 14 FR 7705, 7706 (Dec. 24, 1949). Employers could satisfy either a “long” test based on the previous test—combining a rigorous duties test and lower salary level—or a new “short” test—combining an easier duties test
For the next five decades, the Department retained the “long” and “short” test structure for exemption. The Department updated the salary levels four times between 1958 and 1975. Beginning in 1958, the Department set the lower long test salary level to exclude from the exemption approximately the lowest paid ten percent of employees who passed the long test in low-wage regions, low-wage industries, small establishments, and small towns.
Nearly thirty years passed before the Department next updated the part 541 regulations in 2004. By this point the passage of time had eroded the lower long test salary levels below the amount a minimum wage employee earned for a 40-hour workweek, and even the higher short test salary levels were not far above the minimum wage.
Twelve years passed before the next update to the part 541 regulations in 2016. One of the Department's primary goals in undertaking the 2016 rulemaking was to update the standard salary level test to reflect increases in actual salary levels nationwide since 2004 and to adjust the standard salary level to fall within the historical range of the short test salary level in light of the absence of the more rigorous long test duties requirement. 81 FR 32399-32400. The Department set the standard salary at a level that would exclude from exemption the bottom 40 percent of salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region (currently the South), resulting in an increase from $455 per week to $913 per week.
Litigation challenging the 2016 Final Rule is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. By district court order, the Department is enjoined from implementing and enforcing the Final Rule.
On February 24, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” In relevant part, Sec. 3(d) of the Order tasks federal agencies to identify regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification 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 with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
Consistent with Executive Order 13777, the Department is reviewing the impact of the 2016 Final Rule's changes to the part 541 regulations with a focus on lowering regulatory burden. This RFI will assist the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force in evaluating the 2016 Final Rule.
The Department is aware of stakeholder concerns that the standard salary level set in the 2016 Final Rule was too high. In particular, stakeholders have expressed the concern that the new salary level inappropriately excludes from exemption too many workers who pass the standard duties test, especially given the lack of a lower long test salary for employers to utilize for lower wage white collar employees. In the 2016 Final Rule the Department estimated that 4.2 million salaried white collar workers would, without some intervening action by their employers, change from exempt to non-exempt status.
The Department invites comments on the 2016 revisions to the white collar exemption regulations, including whether the standard salary level set in that rule effectively identifies employees who may be exempt, whether a different salary level would more appropriately identify such employees, the basis for setting a different salary level, and why a different salary level would be more appropriate or effective. In particular, the Department seeks comment on and information relating to the following questions:
1. In 2004 the Department set the standard salary level at $455 per week, which excluded from the exemption roughly the bottom 20 percent of salaried employees in the South and in the retail industry. Would updating the 2004 salary level for inflation be an appropriate basis for setting the standard salary level and, if so, what measure of inflation should be used? Alternatively, would applying the 2004 methodology to current salary data (South and retail industry) be an appropriate basis for setting the salary level? Would setting the salary level using either of these methods require changes to the standard duties test and, if so, what change(s) should be made?
2. Should the regulations contain multiple standard salary levels? If so, how should these levels be set: by size of employer, census region, census division, state, metropolitan statistical area, or some other method? For example, should the regulations set multiple salary levels using a percentage based adjustment like that used by the federal government in the General Schedule Locality Areas to adjust for the varying cost-of-living across different parts of the United States? What would the impact of multiple standard salary levels be on particular regions or industries, and on employers with locations in more than one state?
3. Should the Department set different standard salary levels for the executive, administrative and professional exemptions as it did prior to 2004 and, if so, should there be a lower salary for executive and administrative employees as was done from 1963 until the 2004 rulemaking? What would the impact be on employers and employees?
4. In the 2016 Final Rule the Department discussed in detail the pre-2004 long and short test salary levels. To be an effective measure for determining exemption status, should the standard salary level be set within the historical range of the short test salary level, at the long test salary level, between the short and long test salary levels, or should it be based on some other methodology? Would a standard salary level based on each of these methodologies work effectively with the standard duties test or would changes to the duties test be needed?
5. Does the standard salary level set in the 2016 Final Rule work effectively with the standard duties test or, instead, does it in effect eclipse the role of the duties test in determining exemption status? At what salary level does the duties test no longer fulfill its historical role in determining exempt status?
6. To what extent did employers, in anticipation of the 2016 Final Rule's effective date on December 1, 2016, increase salaries of exempt employees in order to retain their exempt status, decrease newly non-exempt employees' hours or change their implicit hourly rates so that the total amount paid would remain the same, convert worker pay from salaries to hourly wages, or make changes to workplace policies either to limit employee flexibility to work after normal work hours or to track work performed during those times? Where these or other changes occurred, what has been the impact (both economic and non-economic) on the workplace for employers and employees? Did small businesses or other small entities encounter any unique challenges in preparing for the 2016 Final Rule's effective date? Did employers make any additional changes, such as reverting salaries of exempt employees to their prior (pre-rule) levels, after the preliminary injunction was issued?
7. Would a test for exemption that relies solely on the duties performed by the employee without regard to the amount of salary paid by the employer be preferable to the current standard test? If so, what elements would be necessary in a duties-only test and would examination of the amount of non-exempt work performed be required?
8. Does the salary level set in the 2016 Final Rule exclude from exemption particular occupations that have traditionally been covered by the exemption and, if so, what are those occupations? Do employees in those occupations perform more than 20 percent or 40 percent non-exempt work per week?
9. The 2016 Final Rule for the first time permitted non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level. Is this an appropriate limit or should the regulations feature a different percentage cap? Is the amount of the standard salary level relevant in determining whether and to what extent such bonus payments should be credited?
10. Should there be multiple total annual compensation levels for the highly compensated employee exemption? If so, how should they be set: by size of employer, census region, census division, state, metropolitan statistical area, or some other method? For example, should the regulations set multiple total annual compensation levels using a percentage based adjustment like that used by the federal
11. Should the standard salary level and the highly compensated employee total annual compensation level be automatically updated on a periodic basis to ensure that they remain effective, in combination with their respective duties tests, at identifying exempt employees? If so, what mechanism should be used for the automatic update, should automatic updates be delayed during periods of negative economic growth, and what should the time period be between updates to reflect long term economic conditions?
The Department invites interested parties to submit comments during the public comment period and welcomes any pertinent information that will provide a basis for reviewing the 2016 Final Rule.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Request for information.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is asking for input on what regulatory and deregulatory actions it should be considering as part of its regulatory program. PBGC is committed to a program that provides clear and helpful guidance, minimizes burdens and maximizes benefits, and addresses ineffective and outdated rules. This initiative supports PBGC's ongoing regulatory planning and active retrospective review of regulations and responds to the President's executive order on “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.”
PBGC requests that comments be received on or before August 25, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments, identified by “Regulatory Planning and Review,” may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to
Stephanie Cibinic, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington DC 20005-4026;
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal corporation created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits earned by nearly 40 million American workers and retirees in nearly 24,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans. PBGC administers two insurance programs—one for single-employer defined benefit pension plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. Each program is operated and financed separately from the other, and assets from one cannot be used to support the other. PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
To carry out its mission, PBGC issues regulations interpreting or implementing ERISA on such matters as: how to pay premiums, when reports are due, what benefits are covered by the insurance program, how to terminate a plan, the liability for underfunding, and how multiemployer plan withdrawal liability works. Regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context of PBGC's statutory purposes:
• To encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans;
• To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits; and
• To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels consistent with carrying out PBGC's obligations under title IV of ERISA.
PBGC intends to issue regulations consistent with its statutory mission of implementing the law and encouraging the continuation and maintenance of defined benefit plans. Thus, PBGC attempts to minimize administrative burdens on plans and participants, improve transparency, simplify filing, provide relief for small businesses, and assist plans to comply with applicable requirements. PBGC is committed to issuing simple, understandable, and timely regulations that help affected parties. PBGC looks to maximize net benefits and actively reviews regulations to identify and ameliorate inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and requirements made irrelevant over time, with the goal that net cost impact is zero or less overall.
PBGC develops its regulatory planning and review under a series of executive orders. E.O. 12866 (issued in 1993) and E.O. 13563 (issued in 2011) direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 also calls for the periodic review of existing regulations to identify any that can be made more effective or less burdensome in achieving regulatory objectives. E.O. 13771 (issued in January 2017) seeks to reduce regulatory requirements and control regulatory costs. This executive order was followed by E.O. 13777 (issued in February 2017), which calls for a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) in each agency to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their “repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.” In evaluating regulations, the RRTF should ask for input from persons and entities affected by such regulations.
With an eye toward the Fall iteration of the semi-annual regulatory agenda, PBGC is requesting information, suggestions, and comment from the public—including from plan sponsors, participants, practitioners, organizations representing retirees and plan participants, and other parties participating in or affected by PBGC's programs—on regulatory and deregulatory actions PBGC should take.
To facilitate this request for information, PBGC developed the questions below, the answers to which will help determine whether there are gaps in regulatory guidance where the public believes rulemaking would be beneficial, and help PBGC evaluate the continued effectiveness and usefulness of existing regulations.
To maximize the effectiveness of comments, PBGC suggests that commenters:
• Clearly identify the regulation at issue, providing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citation where available;
• Explain, in as much detail as possible, why they believe regulating in a specific area is necessary or beneficial, or why an existing rule may be outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; and
• Describe the costs and benefits of taking a particular regulatory or deregulatory action and the data or experience on which the commenter bases a recommendation.
1. Are there areas where PBGC rulemaking or other guidance would clarify or ease the burden of certain statutory requirements on the public? Would tools such as regulatory safe harbors help plans and sponsors comply with applicable requirements, and if so, what areas particularly would benefit from safe harbors?
2. Are there challenges affecting the establishment and maintenance of pension plans or other aspects of the private pension plan system that should be addressed through rulemaking or other guidance?
3. Are there regulations PBGC should modernize that have become outdated? If so, what type of change (
4. What, if any, technological developments would relieve the administrative burden of an existing regulation or existing information collection?
5. Are there regulations establishing programs or processes that have not operated as well as expected? If so, what specifically has not worked and why?
6. Are there regulations that are unnecessarily complicated which could be streamlined to achieve regulatory objectives more efficiently?
7. Does PBGC have regulations or information collections (
8. Does PBGC ask for information in forms or on reports that may be stale, duplicative, or unnecessary to achieve a particular statutory purpose or regulatory objective? Are there PBGC-required notices from plans to third parties (such as plan participants) that ask for or relay duplicative information?
9. Has PBGC issued any significant guidance documents (
10. Are there regulations that could be tailored to impose less burden on the public? If so, what could be alternative regulatory or other approaches to such rules?
11. Are there regulations that are unnecessary and could be repealed or replaced without impairing a PBGC program's statutory purpose?
12. Are there PBGC regulations that eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation?
13. Are there any other areas where PBGC could improve its regulations to better accomplish its mission?
These questions are not intended to be exhaustive. Commenters may raise other issues or make suggestions unrelated to these questions that they believe would help PBGC develop a better and more responsive regulatory structure.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC); teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking NAVSAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Council's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Council is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 16, 2017, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider NAVSAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
The full Council is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 16, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Council has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Mr. George Detweiler, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Navigation Safety Advisory Council, telephone (202) 372-1566, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to NAVSAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Council's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. NAVSAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the
NAVSAC is tasked to:
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Council meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
First-time homebuyers seeking financing under the Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency) Single Family Housing Section 502 Direct loan program are required to successfully complete an approved homeownership education course prior to loan closing. While homeownership education providers are generally approved by the Agency at the state level, there are currently two nationally approved online education providers. Through this notice the Agency will consider approving other online education providers on a national level in order to expand the Agency applicants' options and access to approved education providers.
Online homeownership education providers interested in having their courses reviewed should submit a complete package to the Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division by August 25, 2017.
Submissions must be sent electronically to
Brooke Baumann, Branch Chief, at
Approval will be subject to meeting course criteria, a recommendation by the Agency-selected panel of housing partners, and signoff by the Administrator. Approval will be given as a third preference format unless the education provider is able to demonstrate and document how their online course along with a required supplemented service provides the same level of training and individualized attention as a first or second preference. 7 CFR 3550.11 outlines the order of preference given to homeownership education courses. First preference is given to classroom, one-on-one counseling, or interactive video conference. These formats are generally extensive and require a significant time and participation commitment from the Agency applicants. Second preference is given to interactive home-study or interactive telephone counseling of at least four hours duration. These formats may only be used if the formats under the first preference are not reasonably available. Third preference, which can only be used if all other formats are not reasonably available, is given to online counseling. 7 CFR 3550.11 also outlines the requirements an education provider and its course must meet in order to be approved for use by Agency applicants.
At a minimum, courses submitted for consideration must contain the following topics/content:
Online homeownership education providers interested in having their courses reviewed must provide a complete package consisting of the course background, online login access to the course for the Agency-selected panel, a copy of the completion certification, price sheet, and contact information (name, phone number, and email address).
The Agency-selected panel will base their recommendation on the following considerations:
A notice of education providers approved through this process will be issued via a memorandum to the Rural Development State Offices. The memorandum will list the format preference assigned to each provider. A copy of the memorandum will be simultaneously emailed to all education providers who applied through this notice.
Approvals are not subject to expiration. However, an approval may be revoked for justifiable cause.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) announces the timeframe to submit pre-applications for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing (FLH) loans and Section 516 FLH grants for the construction of new off-farm FLH units and related facilities for domestic farm laborers and for the purchase and substantial rehabilitation of an existing non-FLH property. The intended purpose of these loans and grants is to increase the number of available housing units for domestic farm laborers. This Notice describes the method used to distribute funds, the application process, and submission requirements.
RHS will publish on its Web site,
The Agency will assign additional points to pre-applications for projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent over the last 30 years. This emphasis will support Rural Development's mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
The deadline for receipt of all applications in response to this Notice is 5:00 p.m., local time to the appropriate Rural Development State Office on September 11, 2017. Rural Development will not consider any application that is received after the deadline unless the date and time is extended by another notice published in the
Applicants wishing to submit an application in response to this Notice must contact the Rural Development State Office serving the State of the proposed off-FLH project in order to receive further information and copies of the application package. You may find the addresses and contact information for each State Office following this web link,
Mirna Reyes-Bible, Finance and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0781 (Room 1263-S), USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781, telephone: (202) 720-1753 (this is not a toll free number.), or via email:
Pre-applications will only be accepted through the date and time listed in this Notice. All awards are subject to availability of funding. Individual requests may not exceed $3 million (total loan and grant). No State may receive more than 30 percent of available FLH funding available in FY 2017.
If there are insufficient applications from around the country to exhaust Sections 514 and 516 funds available, the Agency may then exceed the 30 percent cap per State. Section 516 off-farm FLH grants may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost (TDC) of the housing as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11.
If leveraged funds are going to be used and are in the form of tax credits, the applicant must include in its pre-application written evidence that a tax credit application has been submitted and accepted by the Housing Finance Agency (HFA). All applications that will receive any leveraged funds must have firm commitments in place within 12 months of the issuance of a “Notice of Pre-application Review Action,” Handbook Letter 106 (3560). Applicants without written evidence that a tax credit application has been submitted and accepted by the HFA must certify in writing they will apply for tax credits to the HFA and obtain a firm commitment within 12 months of the issuance of a “Notice of Pre-application Review Action.”
Rental Assistance (RA) and operating assistance will be available for new construction in FY 2017. Operating assistance is explained at 7 CFR 3560.574 and may be used in lieu of tenant-specific RA in off-FLH projects that serve migrant farm workers as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11, that are financed under Section 514 or Section 516 (h) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486(h) respectively), and otherwise meet the requirements of 7 CFR 3560.574.
In order to maximize the use of our limited supply of FLH funds, if it is financially feasible we may contact eligible NOSA responses selected for an award in point score order starting with the higher scores, with proposals to
Housing Eligibility—Housing that is constructed with FLH loans and/or grants must meet Rural Development's design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C. Once constructed, off-farm FLH must be managed in accordance with 7 CFR part 3560. In addition, off-farm FLH must be operated on a non-profit basis and tenancy must be open to all qualified domestic farm laborers, regardless at which farm they work. Section 514(f)(3) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484(f)(3)) defines domestic farm laborers to include any person regardless of the person's source of employment, who receives a substantial portion of his or her income from the primary production of agricultural or aqua cultural commodities in the unprocessed or processed stage, and also includes the person's family.
Tenant Eligibility—Tenant eligibility is limited to persons who meet the definition of a “disabled domestic farm laborer,” or a “domestic farm laborer,” or “retired domestic farm laborer,” as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11. Farm workers who are admitted to this country on a temporary basis under the Temporary Agricultural Workers (H-2A Visa) program are not eligible to occupy Sections 514/516 off-farm FLH.
Applicant Eligibility—
(a) To be eligible to receive a Section 516 grant for off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based non-profit organization, including community and faith-based organizations, a non-profit organization of farm workers, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, an agency or political subdivision of a State or local Government, or a public agency (such as a housing authority). The applicant must be able to contribute at least one-tenth of the TDC from non-Rural Development resources which can include leveraged funds.
(b) To be eligible to receive a Section 514 loan for off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based non-profit organization, including community and faith-based organizations, a non-profit organization of farm workers, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, an agency or political subdivision of a State or local Government, a public agency (such as a housing authority), or a limited partnership which has a non-profit entity as its general partner, and
(i) Be unable to provide the necessary housing from its own resources;
(ii) Except for State or local public agencies and Indian tribes, be unable to obtain similar credit elsewhere at rates that would allow for rents within the payment ability of eligible residents.
(iii) Broad-based non-profit organizations must have a membership that reflects a variety of interests in the area where the housing will be located.
(a) 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E, regarding equal opportunity requirements;
(b) For grants only, 2 CFR parts 200 and 400, which establishes the uniform administrative and audit requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local Governments and to non-profit organizations;
(c) 7 CFR part 1901, subpart F, regarding historical and archaeological properties;
(d) 7 CFR part 1970, regarding environmental review and documentation requirements;
(e) 7 CFR part 3560, subpart L, regarding the loan and grant authorities of the off-farm FLH program;
(f) 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A, regarding planning and performing construction and other development;
(g) 7 CFR part 1924, subpart C, regarding the planning and performing of site development work;
(h) For construction financed with a Section 516 grant, the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a)-276(a)-5) and implementing regulations published at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5;
(i) All other requirements contained in 7 CFR part 3560, regarding the Sections 514/516 off-farm FLH programs; and
(j) Please note that grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and maintain registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) prior to submitting a pre-application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in the CCR database at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).
The application process will be in two phases: The initial pre-application (or proposal) and the submission of a final application. Only those pre-applications or proposals that are selected for further processing will be invited to submit final applications. In the event that a proposal is selected for further processing and the applicant declines, the next highest ranked unfunded pre-application may be selected for further processing. All pre-applications for Sections 514 and 516 funds must be filed with the appropriate Rural Development State Office and must meet the requirements of this Notice. Incomplete pre-applications will not be reviewed and will be returned to the applicant. No pre-application will be accepted after the deadline unless date and time are extended by another Notice published in the
Pre-applications can be submitted either electronically using the FLH Pre-Application form found at
Submission of the electronic Section 514 Loan Proposal form
(a) Electronic Media Option. Submit all forms and documents as read-only Adobe Acrobat files on electronic media such as CDs, DVDs or USB drives. For each electronic device submitted, the applicant should include a Table of Contents of all documents and forms on that device. The electronic media should be submitted to the Rural Development State Office listed in this Notice where the property is located. Any forms and documents that are not sent electronically, including the check for credit reports, must be mailed to the Rural Development State Office.
(b) Email Option. On the Loan Proposal form you will be asked for a submission email address. This email address will be used to establish a folder on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) server with your unique email address. Once the Loan Proposal form is processed, you will receive an additional email notifying you of the email address that you can use to email your forms and documents.
(c) Hard Copy Submission to the Rural Development State Office. If you are unable to send the proposal package electronically using either of the options listed above, you may send a hard copy of all forms and documents to the Rural Development State Office where the property is located. Hard copy pre-applications received on or before the deadline date will receive the close of business time of the day received as the receipt time. Hard copy pre-applications must be received by the submission deadline and no later than 5:00 p.m., local time, September 11, 2017. Assistance for filing electronic and hard copy pre-applications can be obtained from any Rural Development State Office.
For electronic submissions, there is a time delay between the time it is sent and the time it is received depending on network traffic. As a result, last-minute submissions sent before the deadline date and time could well be received after the deadline date and time because of the increased network traffic. Applicants are reminded that all submissions received after the deadline date and time will be rejected, regardless of when they were sent.
If a pre-application is accepted for further processing, the applicant must submit a complete, final application, acceptable to Rural Development prior to the obligation of Rural Development funds. If the pre-application is not accepted for further processing the applicant will be notified of appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.
(a) The pre-application must contain the following:
(1) A summary page listing the following items. This information should be double-spaced between items and not be in narrative form.
(i) Applicant's name.
(ii) Applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number.
(iii) Applicant's address.
(iv) Applicant's telephone number.
(v) Name of applicant's contact person, telephone number, and address.
(vi) Amount of loan and/or grant requested.
(vii) For grants of Federal financial assistance (including loans and grants, cooperative agreements, etc.), the applicant's Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and registration in the CCR database in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. As required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), all grant applicants must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at (866) 705-5711 or via the internet at:
(2) Awards made under this Notice are subject to the provisions contained in an appropriation in FY 2017 that funds FLH.
(3) A narrative verifying the applicant's ability to meet the eligibility requirements stated earlier in this Notice. If an applicant is selected for further processing, Rural Development will require additional documentation as set forth in a Conditional Commitment in order to verify the entity has the legal and financial capability to carry out the obligation of the loan.
(4) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” can be obtained at:
(5) For loan pre-applications, current (within 6 months of pre-application date) financial statements with the following paragraph certified by the applicant's designated and legally authorized signer:
“I/we certify the above is a true and accurate reflection of our financial condition as of the date stated herein. This statement is given for the purpose of inducing the United States of America to make a loan or to enable the United States of America to make a determination of continued eligibility of the applicant for a loan as requested in the loan application of which this statement is a part.”
(6) For loan pre-applications, a check for $24 from applicants made out to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This will be used to pay for credit reports obtained by Rural Development.
(7) Evidence that the applicant is unable to obtain credit from other sources. Letters from credit institutions which normally provide real estate loans in the area should be obtained and these letters should indicate the rates and terms upon which a loan might be provided. (
(8) If a FLH grant is desired, a statement concerning the need for a FLH grant. The statement should include preliminary estimates of the rents required with and without a grant.
(9) A statement of the applicant's experience in operating labor housing or other rental housing. If the applicant's experience is limited, additional information should be provided to indicate how the applicant plans to compensate for this limited experience (
(10) A brief statement explaining the applicant's proposed method of operation and management (
(11) Applicants must also provide:
(i) A copy of, or an accurate citation to, the special provisions of State law under which they are organized, a copy of the applicant's charter, Articles of Incorporation, and by-laws;
(ii) The names, occupations, and addresses of the applicant's members, directors, and officers; and
(iii) If a member or subsidiary of another organization, the organization's name, address, and nature of business.
(12) A preliminary market survey or market study to identify the supply and demand for farm labor housing in the market area. The market area must be clearly identified and may include only the area from which tenants can reasonably be drawn for the proposed project. Documentation must be provided to justify a need within the intended market area for the housing of “domestic farm laborers,” as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11. The documentation must take into account disabled and retired farm workers. The preliminary survey should address or include the following items:
(i) The annual income level of farmworker families in the area and the probable income of the farm workers who will likely occupy the proposed housing;
(ii) A realistic estimate of the number of farm workers who remain in the area where they harvest and the number of farm workers who normally migrate into the area. Information on migratory workers should indicate the average number of months the migrants reside in the area and an indication of what type of family groups are represented by the migrants (
(iii) General information concerning the type of labor intensive crops grown in the area and prospects for continued demand for farm laborers;
(iv) The overall occupancy rate for comparable rental units in the area and the rents charged and customary rental practices for these units (
(v) The number, condition, adequacy, rental rates and ownership of units currently used or available to farm workers;
(vi) A description of the units proposed, including the number, type, size, rental rates, amenities such as carpets and drapes, related facilities such as a laundry room or community room and other facilities providing supportive services in connection with the housing and the needs of the prospective tenants such as a health clinic or day care facility, estimated development timeline, estimated TDC, and applicant contribution; and
(vii) The applicant must also identify all other sources of funds, including the dollar amount, source, and commitment status. (
(13) The applicant must submit a checklist, certification, and signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer, as applicable, for any energy programs listed in Section IV the applicant intends to participate in.
(14) The following forms are required:
(i) A prepared HUD Form 935.2A, “Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHM) Multi-Family Housing,” in accordance with 7 CFR 1901.203(c). The plan will reflect that occupancy is open to all qualified “domestic farm laborers,” regardless of which farming operation they work and that they will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, marital or familial status or National origin in regard to the occupancy or use of the units. The form can be found at:
(ii) A proposed operating budget utilizing Form RD 3560-7, “
(iii) An estimate of development cost utilizing Form RD 1924-13, “
(iv) Form RD 3560-30, “
(v) Form HUD 2530, “
(vi) If requesting RA or Operating Assistance, Form RD 3560-25, “
(vii) Form RD 400-4, “
(viii) Evidence of compliance with Executive Order 12372. The applicant must send a copy of Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance”, to the applicant's State clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. If the applicant is located in a State that does not have a clearinghouse, the applicant is not required to submit the form. Applications from Federally recognized Indian tribes are not subject to this requirement.
(15) Evidence of site control, such as an option contract or sales contract. In addition, a map and description of the proposed site, including the availability of water, sewer, and utilities and the proximity to community facilities and services such as shopping, schools, transportation, doctors, dentists, and hospitals.
(16) Preliminary plans and specifications, including plot plans, building layouts, and type of construction and materials. The housing must meet Rural Development's design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C and must also meet all applicable Federal, State, and local accessibility standards.
(17) A supportive services plan, which describes services that will be provided on-site or made available to tenants through cooperative agreements with service providers in the community, such as a health clinic or day care facility. Off-site services must be accessible and affordable to farm workers and their families. Letters of intent from service providers are acceptable documentation at the pre-application stage.
(18) A sources and uses statement which shows all sources of funding included in the proposed project. The terms and schedules of all sources included in the project should be included in the sources and uses statement.
(19) A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the “Pre-Application Scoring Criteria,” contained in this Notice, followed by a reference to the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation that is contained in the proposal that supports the criteria.
(20) Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to include a checklist of all of the pre-application requirements and to have their pre-application indexed and tabbed to facilitate the review process;
(21) Evidence of compliance with the requirements of the applicable State Housing Preservation Office (SHPO), and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). A letter from the SHPO and/or THPO where the off-farm labor housing project is located, signed by their designee will serve as evidence of compliance.
1.
(a) Rural Development State Office will accept, review, and score pre-applications in accordance with this Notice. The scoring factors are:
(1) The presence of construction cost savings, including donated land and construction leverage assistance, for the units that will serve program-eligible tenants. The savings will be calculated as a percentage of the Rural Development TDC. The percentage calculation excludes any costs prohibited by Rural Development as loan expenses, such as a developer's fee. Construction cost savings includes, but is not limited to, funds for hard construction costs, and State or Federal funds which are applicable to construction costs. A minimum of 10 percent cost savings is required to earn points; however, if the total percentage of cost savings is less than 10 percent and the proposal includes donated land, two points will be awarded for the donated land. To count as cost savings for purposes of the selection criteria, the applicant must submit written evidence from the third-party funder that an application for those funds has been submitted and accepted points will be awarded in accordance with the following table using rounding to the nearest whole number.
(2) The presence of operational cost savings, such as tax abatements, non-Rural Development tenant subsidies or donated services are calculated on a per-unit cost savings for the sum of the savings. Savings must be available for at least 5 years and documentation must be provided with the application demonstrating the availability of savings for 5 years. To calculate the savings, take the total amount of savings and divide it by the number of units in the project that will benefit from the savings to obtain the per unit cost savings. For non-Rural Development tenant subsidy, if the value changes during the 5-year calculation, the applicant must use the lower of the non-Rural Development tenant subsidy to calculate per unit cost savings. For example, a 10-unit property with 100 percent designated farm labor housing units receiving $20,000 per year non-Rural Development subsidy yields a cost savings of $100,000 ($20,000 × 5 years); resulting to a $10,000 per-unit cost savings ($100,000/10 units). Use the following table to apply points:
(3) Additional 10 points will be awarded to projects in persistent poverty counties. A county is considered persistently poor if 20 percent or more of its population was living in poverty over the last 30 years (measured by the 1990, 2000 decennial censuses and 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).
(4) Presence of tenant services.
(i) Up to 25 points will be awarded based on the presence of and extent to which a tenant services plan exists that clearly outlines services that will be provided to the residents of the proposed project. These services may include, but are not limited to, transportation related services, on-site English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, move-in funds, emergency assistance funds, homeownership counseling, food pantries, after school tutoring, and computer learning centers.
(ii) Two points will be awarded for each resident service included in the tenant services plan up to a maximum of 10 points. Plans must detail how the services are to be administered, who will administer them, and where they will be administered. All tenant service plans must include letters of intent that clearly state the service that will be provided at the project for the benefit of the residents from any party administering each service, including the applicant.
(5) Energy Initiative Scoring Points (maximum 70 points)
Properties may receive points for energy initiatives in the categories of energy conservation, energy generation, water conservation and green property management. Depending on the scope of work (SOW), properties may earn “energy initiative” points (up to a maximum of 70 points) in either one of two categories: (1) New Construction or (2) Purchase and Rehabilitation of an Existing Non-Farm Labor Housing Building. Projects will be eligible for one category of the two, but not both.
Energy programs including LEED for Homes, Green Communities, etc., will each have an initial checklist indicating prerequisites for participation in its energy program. The applicable energy program checklist will establish whether prerequisites for the energy program's participation will be met. All checklists must be accompanied by a signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer stating that the goals are achievable and the project has been enrolled in these programs if enrollment is applicable to that program. In addition, projects that apply for points under the energy generation category must include calculations of savings of energy. Compare property energy usage of three scenarios: (1) Property built to required code of State with no renewables, to (2) property as-designed with commitments to stated energy conservation programs without the use of renewables and (3) property as-designed with commitments to stated energy conservation programs and the use of proposed renewables. Use local average metrics for weather and utility costs and detail savings in kWh and dollars. Provide payback calculations. These calculations must be done by a licensed engineer or credentialed renewable energy provider. Include with application, the provider/engineer's credentials including qualifications, recommendations, and proof of previous work. The checklist, affidavit, calculations and qualifications of engineer/energy provider must be submitted together with the loan application.
Enrollment in EPA Portfolio Manager Program. All projects awarded scoring points for energy initiatives must enroll the project in the EPA Portfolio Manager program to track post-construction energy consumption data. More information about this program may be found at:
(i) Energy Conservation for New Construction or Purchase and
The points will be allocated as follows:
• Participation in the EPA's Energy Star for Homes V3 program. (20 points)
OR
• Participation in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners. (30 points)
OR
• Participation in one of the following two programs will be awarded points for certification.
Each program has four levels of certification. State the level of certification that the applicant plans will achieve in their certification:
• LEED for Homes program by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC):
Applicant must state the level of certification that the applicant's plans will achieve in their certification in its pre-application.
OR
• Home Innovation's and The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ICC 700 National Green Building Standard TM:
Applicant must state the level of certification that the applicant's plans will achieve in their certification in its pre-application.
AND
• Participation in the Department of Energy's Zero Energy Ready program. (8 points)
AND
• Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county or municipality program, will receive an additional 2 points.
(ii) Energy Conservation for Rehabilitation (maximum 55 points). Pre-applications for the purchase and rehabilitation of non-program MFH and related facilities in rural areas may be eligible to receive 55 points when the pre-application includes a written certification by the applicant to participate in one of the following energy efficiency programs. Again, the certification must be accompanied by a signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer stating that the goals are achievable. Points will be award as follows:
• Participation in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners (53 points)
AND
• Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county or municipality program, will receive an additional 2 points. The applicant should be aware of and look for additional requirements that are sometimes embedded in the third-party program's rating and verification systems. (2 points)
(iii) Energy Generation (maximum 7 points). Pre-applications for new construction or purchase and rehabilitation of non-program multi-family projects which participate in the above mentioned programs and receive at least 20 points in the point allocations above are eligible to earn additional points for installation of on-site renewable energy sources. Energy analysis of preliminary building plans using industry-recognized simulation software must document the projected total energy consumption of all of the building components and building site usage. Projects with an energy analysis of the preliminary or rehabilitation building plans that propose a 10 percent to 100 percent energy generation commitment (where generation is considered to be the total amount of energy needed to be generated on-site to make the building a net-zero consumer of energy) will be awarded points as follows:
• 0 to 9 percent commitment to energy generation receives 0 points.
• 10 to 20 percent commitment to energy generation receives 1 point.
• 21 to 40 percent commitment to energy generation receives 2 points.
• 41 to 60 percent commitment to energy generation receives 3 points.
• 61 to 80 percent commitment to energy generation receives 4 points.
• 81-100 percent or more commitment to energy generation receives 5 points.
Projects may participate in Power Purchase Agreements or Solar Leases to achieve their on-site renewable energy generation goals provided that the financial obligations of the lease/purchase agreements are clearly documented and included in the application, and qualifying ratios continue to be achieved.
An additional (2) points will be awarded for off-grid systems, or elements of systems, provided that at least 5 percent of on-site renewable system is off-grid. See
(iv) Water Conservation in Irrigation Measures (maximum 3 points). Projects may be awarded 3 points for the use of an engineered recycled water (gray water or storm water) for landscape irrigation covering 50 percent or more of the property's site landscaping needs.
(v) Property Management Credentials (maximum 5 points). Projects may be awarded an additional 5 points if the designated property management company or individuals that will assume maintenance and operations responsibilities upon completion of construction work have a Credential for Green Property Management. Credentialing can be obtained from the National Apartment Association (NAA), National Affordable Housing Management Association, The Institute for Real Estate Management, U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Operations and Maintenance (LEED OM), or another source with a certifiable credentialing program. Credentialing must be illustrated in the resume(s) of the property management team and included with the pre-application.
The National Office will rank all pre-applications nationwide and distribute funds to States in rank order, within funding and RA limits. When proposals have an equal score, preference will be given first to Indian tribes as defined in § 3560.11 and then local non-profit organizations or public bodies whose principal purposes include low-income housing that meet the conditions of § 3560.55(c) and the following conditions:
• Is exempt from Federal income taxes under section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code;
• Is not wholly or partially owned or controlled by a for-profit or limited-profit type entity;
• Whose members, or the entity, do not share an identity of interest with a for-profit or limited-profit type entity;
• Is not co-venturing with another entity; and
• The entity or its members will not be receiving any direct or indirect benefits pursuant to Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
If there are two or more applications that have the same score and both cannot be funded, a lottery in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.56(c) (2) will be used to break the tie. If insufficient funds or RA remain for the next ranked proposal, that applicant will be given a chance to modify their pre-application to bring it within remaining funding levels. This will be repeated for each next ranked eligible proposal until an award can be made or the list is exhausted.
Rural Development will notify all applicants whether their applications have been accepted or rejected and provide appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11, as appropriate.
Loan applicants must submit their initial applications by the due date specified in this Notice. Once the applications have been scored and ranked by the National Office, the National Office will advise State Offices of the proposals selected for further processing, State Offices will respond to applicants by letter.
If the application is not accepted for further processing, the applicant will be notified of appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.
All Farm Labor Housing loans and grants are subject to the restrictive-use provisions contained in 7 CFR 3560.72(a) (2).
Borrowers must maintain separate financial records for the operation and maintenance of the project and for tenant services. Tenant services will not be funded by Rural Development. Funds allocated to the operation and maintenance of the project may not be used to supplement the cost of tenant services, nor may tenant service funds be used to supplement the project operation and maintenance. Detailed financial reports regarding tenant services will not be required unless specifically requested by Rural Development, and then only to the extent necessary for Rural Development and the borrower to discuss the affordability (and competitiveness) of the service provided to the tenant. The project audit, or verification of accounts on Form RD 3560-10, “
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program. Political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at:
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Exceptions to Including the Full USDA Non-Discrimination Statement.
If the size of the material is too small to include the full statement, the material will at a minimum, include the following statement in print in the same size as the text:
“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.” Where appropriate, a recipient may state:
“This institution in an equal opportunity provider.”
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that heat-treated extruded aluminum products that meet the chemical specifications for 5050-grade aluminum alloy, regardless of producer, exporter, or importer, constitute later-developed merchandise, and are circumventing the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Department also rescinds its minor alterations anti-circumvention inquiry.
Effective July 26, 2017.
Scott Hoefke or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.
On March 21, 2016, the Department published its notice of initiation of this anti-circumvention inquiry.
A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the
The merchandise covered by the
Products subject to these O
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached in the Appendix to this notice.
In accordance with 781(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we continue to find that all imports from the PRC of heat-treated extruded aluminum products that meet the chemical specifications for 5050-grade aluminum alloy, regardless of producer, exporter, or importer, constitute later-developed merchandise that is circumventing, and should be included within, the scope of the
In light of the Department's final affirmative determination of circumvention pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act, the Department rescinds its minor alterations anti-circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of inquiry merchandise from the PRC (regardless of producer, exporter, or importer), entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after March 21, 2016, the date of publication of the initiation of this inquiry, until appropriate liquidation instructions are issued.
In light of the Department's preliminary finding of circumvention, the Department considered whether to require importers of certain aluminum extrusions who claim the imported merchandise is not subject to the
As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, because the Department has determined, for purposes of sections 781(d)(1) and (e) of the Act, that the later-developed inquiry merchandise does not incorporate a significant technological advance or significant alteration of an earlier product, the Department did not notify the International Trade Commission of its proposed inclusion of the inquiry merchandise within the
This affirmative anti-circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to modifying the Gary Paxton Industrial Park (GPIP) dock in Sawmill Cove, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities.
Comments and information must be received no later than August 25, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process and making a final decision on the IHA request.
On May 8, 2017, NMFS received a request from CBS for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to the GPIP dock modification project in Sawmill Cove, Alaska. On May 26, 2017, NMFS requested additional information and CBS submitted a revised application on June 21, 2017, which NMFS deemed adequate and complete. CBS's request is for harassment only and NMFS concurs that serious injury or mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
CBS is requesting take, by Level A and B harassment, of six species of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal within Sawmill Cove, Alaska. Pile driving and removal would occur for 16 days from October 1 through December 31, 2017. No subsequent IHAs would be necessary to complete the project.
CBS is modifying an existing marine and commercial industrial site by removing existing aging docks and installing a new floating dock, small craft float, and transfer bridge. To do so, CBS must remove existing abandoned, creosote-treated piles and install new piles. Pile driving and pile removal associated with this work may result in auditory injury (Level A harassment) and behavioral harassment (Level B harassment). All pile driving and removal would take place at the existing dock facility and occur for 16 days. The purpose of the project is to provide deep water port access, meet modern safety standards, and promote marine commerce in the region.
The proposed IHA would be valid from October 1 through December 31, 2017. Removing old timber piles with a vibratory hammer could occur for up to 5 hours per day for 6 days. Removing the temporary template piles could occur for up to 1 hour on 2 additional days. Vibratory pile driving could occur for up to 2 hours per day for 6 days to install the permanent piles while impact pile driving could occur for up to 10 minutes a day for proofing following vibratory pile driving. In total, pile activities are expected to occur for 16 days from October 1 through December 31, 2017.
Sawmill Cove is a small body of water located near Sitka, Alaska at the mouth of Silver Bay, which opens to the Sitka Sound and Gulf of Alaska (see figures 1 and 2 in application). Bathymetry in Sawmill Cove shows a fairly even seafloor that gradually falls to a depth of approximately 50 feet (ft) (15 meters (m)). To the southeast, Silver Bay is approximately 0.5 miles (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) wide, 5.5 mi (8.9 km) long, and 150-250 ft (46-76 m) deep. The bay is uniform with few rock outcroppings or islands. To the southwest, the Eastern Channel opens to Sitka Sound, dropping off to depths of 400 ft (120 m) approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the project site.
Sawmill Cove is an active marine commercial and industrial area. The dock footprint is previously disturbed with abandoned dock structures associated with the former Alaska Pulp Mill. Silver Bay Seafoods' processing plant is located adjacent to the project site. This plant processes herring and salmon (primarily pink salmon).
The purpose of the project is to construct a multipurpose docking area that will serve a wide variety of vessels, provide deep water port access to the GPIP, meet modern standards for safety, and promote marine commerce in the region. The proposed work includes removing 280 abandoned creosote-treated piles located in shallow water, installing a large floating deep-water dock (a repurposed barge measuring 250 ft (76.2 m) × 74 ft (22.6 m) × 19 ft (5.8 m)), small craft float (12 ft (3.7 m) × 100 ft (30.5 m)), and v-shaped float (see Figure 4 and 5 in CBS's application). For access, CBS would also construct a transfer bridge and gangway. To stabilize the shoreline, CBS would install an abutment and retaining wall. Materials and equipment, including the floating dock, would be transported to the project site by barge. While work is conducted in the water, anchored barges would be used to stage construction materials and equipment.
Pile removal and installation are the only activities that may harass marine mammals. To facilitate the work, CBS would construct two dolphin structures to support the floating dock. Each dolphin requires 6 temporary 30-in steel piles to act as a template for installing the permanent piles, 2 permanent 30-in steel batter piles (piles driven at an angle with the vertical to resist a lateral force) to act as the “legs” of the dolphin, and a single 48-in vertical steel piles which would constitute the center of the dolphin structure. CBS would use an ICE 44B vibratory hammer (12,450 pounds static weight) and a Delmag D46 diesel hammer (max energy 107,280 ft-pounds) to install piles. The existing old timber piles (12-in and 16-in timber) associated with the old dock would be removed by the vibratory hammer if they cannot be pulled out mechanically. The 12 temporary piles used for the template would also be removed following dock completion.
The six permanent piles (four 30-in and two 48-in) would be driven through approximately 60-70 ft (18-21 m) of unconsolidated sand with a vibratory hammer operated at a reduced energy setting, impacted into bedrock, and then anchored into 25-40 ft (7.6-12.2 m) of bedrock with a rock anchor drill and grout. To anchor the piles, a 10-inch casing would be inserted in the center of the pile and a 15.2 centimeter (cm) (6-in) rock anchor drill would be lowered into the casing and used to drill into bedrock. Rock fragments would be removed through the top of the casing. Finally, the drill and casing would be removed and the hole would be filled with grout to secure the pile to bedrock. The casing acts like a cofferdam and would block noise; therefore, drilling is not expected to result in harassment and is not discussed further.
CBS would use only a vibratory hammer to install the 12 temporary template piles (
The duration of pile driving and removal varies by pile type (see Table 1 in CBS's application). CBS would remove up to 60 of the old timber piles
CBS would carry out pile driving in a manner designed to reduce impacts to marine mammals. The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in Sawmill Cove and Silver Bay and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. 2016 SARs (
NMFS identifies 14 species may potentially occur in the action area: humpback whale (
The Steller sea lion is the largest of the eared seals, ranging along the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Steller sea lions were listed as threatened range-wide under the ESA on November 26, 1990 (55 FR 49204). Subsequently, NMFS published a final rule designating critical habitat for the species as a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haul-outs and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas (58 FR 45269; August 27, 1993). In 1997, NMFS reclassified Steller sea lions as two distinct population segments (DPSs) based on genetic studies and other information (62 FR 24345; May 5, 1997). Steller sea lion populations that primarily occur west of 144° W. (Cape Suckling, Alaska) comprise the western DPS (wDPS), while all others comprise the eastern DPS (eDPS); however, there is regular movement of both DPSs across this boundary (Jemison
Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and pelagic waters where they are opportunistic predators. They feed primarily on a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods. Because the action area contains a herring processing plant, animals may linger in the area to feed opportunistically. However, strong residency time may be limited because the plant does not operate from October through March (when pile activities would occur). Anecdotal evidence from staff at the fish processing plant indicate that multiple (up to 10) Steller sea lions may reside in the area for multiple days (pers. comm, Solstice, July 5, 2017).
Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to rest and take refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used rookeries to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs. There are no established haul-outs in the action area; however, individuals in the action area may rest on rocks and along the shoreline intermittently. No critical habitat for this species is designated in Southeast Alaska.
Steller sea lions are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. Since subsistence harvest surveys began in 1992, the number of households hunting and harvesting sea lions has remained relatively constant at low levels (Wolf
Harbor seals range from Baja California north along the west coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, British Columbia, and Southeast Alaska; west through the Gulf of Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Aleutian Islands; and north in the Bering Sea to Cape Newenham and the Pribilof Islands. They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals are generally non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction.
Harbor seals in Alaska are partitioned into 12 separate stocks based largely on genetic structure: (1) The Aleutian Islands stock, (2) the Pribilof Islands stock, (3) the Bristol Bay stock, (4) the North Kodiak stock, (5) the South Kodiak stock, (6) the Prince William Sound stock, (7) the Cook Inlet/Shelikof stock, (8) the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock, (9) the Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage stock, (10) the Sitka/Chatham stock, (11) the Dixon/Cape Decision stock, and (12) the Clarence Strait stock. Only the Sitka/Chatham stock is considered in this proposed IHA. The range of this stock includes Cape Bingham south to Cape Ommaney and the adjacent coastal and inshore waters, including the project area.
Within the action area, harbor seals are present year round with peak abundance February through April (Straley and Pendell 2017). Monthly group size ranges from 0-5 animals but
Harbor seals are included in Alaska subsistence harvests. Since subsistence harvest surveys began in 1992, there have been declines in the number of households hunting and harvesting seals in Southeast Alaska (Wolf et al. 2013). In 2012, the community of Sitka had an estimated subsistence take of 49 harbor seals (Wolf
The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins. In winter, most humpback whales occur in the subtropical and tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and migrate to high latitudes in the summer to feed. The historic summer feeding range of humpback whales in the North Pacific encompassed coastal and inland waters around the Pacific Rim from Point Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into the Sea of Okhotsk and north of the Bering Strait (Johnson and Wolman 1984).
Under the MMPA, there are three stocks of humpback whales in the North Pacific: (1) The California/Oregon/Washington and Mexico stock, consisting of winter/spring populations in coastal Central America and coastal Mexico which migrate to the coast of California to southern British Columbia in summer/fall; (2) the central North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations of the Hawaiian Islands which migrate primarily to northern British Columbia/Southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands; and (3) the western North Pacific stock, consisting of winter/spring populations off Asia which migrate primarily to Russia and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands. The central North Pacific stock is the only stock that is found near the project activities.
On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule dividing the globally listed endangered species into 14 DPSs, removing the worldwide species-level listing, and in its place listing four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; effective October 11, 2016). Two DPSs (Hawaii and Mexico) are potentially present within the action area. The Hawaii DPS is not listed and the Mexico DPS is listed as threatened under the ESA. The Hawaii DPS is estimated to contain 11,398 animals where the Mexico DPS is estimated to contain 3,264 animals.
Within the action area, humpback whales are seen most frequently from September through February although sighting may extend into April (Straley and Pendell 2017). Survey data indicates that the typical group size for humpback whales in the area is between 2 and 4 whales, and approximately 2.18 whales occur in the area per day. The maximum group size is unknown. When present in the area, humpback whales are foraging primarily on herring.
Killer whales have been observed in all oceans and seas of the world, but the highest densities occur in colder and more productive waters found at high latitudes. Killer whales are found throughout the North Pacific, and occur along the entire Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Muto
Based on data regarding association patterns, acoustics, movements, and genetic differences, eight killer whale stocks are now recognized: (1) The Alaska Resident stock; (2) the Northern Resident stock; (3) the Southern Resident stock; (4) the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stock; (5) the AT1 Transient stock; (6) the West Coast transient stock, occurring from California through southeastern Alaska; and (7) the Offshore stock, and (8) the Hawaiian stock. Only the Alaska resident; Northern resident; Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient (Gulf of Alaska transient); and the West coast transient stocks are considered in this application because other stocks occur outside the geographic area under consideration. Any of these four stocks could be seen in the action area; however, the Northern resident stock is most likely to occur in the area. The trend for the Northern resident stock is an increasing population with an average of 2.1 percent annual increase over a 36 year time period. For all other stocks, population trends are unknown.
In the action area, killer whales are known to occur but there sightings are unpredictable. Between 0 and 12 killer whales can occur within the project area with typical group size of between four and eight whales with a maximum group size of eight (Straley and Pendell 2017).
The harbor porpoise inhabits temporal, subarctic, and arctic waters. In the eastern North Pacific, harbor porpoises range from Point Barrow, Alaska, to Point Conception, California. Harbor porpoise primarily frequent coastal waters and occur most frequently in waters less than 100 m deep (Hobbs and Waite 2010). They may occasionally be found in deeper offshore waters.
In Alaska, harbor porpoises are currently divided into three stocks, based primarily on geography: (1) The Southeast Alaska stock—occurring from the northern border of British Columbia to Cape Suckling, Alaska, (2) the Gulf of Alaska stock—occurring from Cape Suckling to Unimak Pass, and (3) the Bering Sea stock—occurring throughout the Aleutian Islands and all waters north of Unimak Pass. Only the Southeast Alaska stock is considered in this application because the other stocks are not found in the geographic area under consideration. The 2016 SAR for this stock further delineated population estimates (Muto
There are no subsistence use of this species; however, as noted above, entanglement in fishing gear contributes to human-caused mortality and serious injury. Muto
In the action area, harbor porpoises are considered infrequent but could occur during any month with average group size of five individuals; maximum group size is eight individuals (Straley and Pendell 2017).
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; and
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
Five marine mammal species (three cetacean and two pinniped species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Of the cetacean species that may be present, the humpback whale is classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
The ADOT's construction work involving in-water pile driving and pile removal could effect marine mammals by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area leading to an auditory threshold shifts (TS). NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as “a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS, 2016). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB (ANSI 1995, Yost 2007). A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2016), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Exposure to noise from pile driving and removal also has the potential to behavioral disturb marine mammals. Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, moving direction and/or speed, reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding), visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping), avoidance of areas where sound sources are located, and/or flight responses. Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). These potential behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
In 2016, Alaska DOT documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities (
The project would occur in an active marine commercial and industrial area. The dock footprint is previously disturbed with abandoned dock structures associate with the former Alaska Pulp Mill in the area. Removing the timber piles would likely benefit the habitat by removing creosote-treated wood. Construction activities at the GPIP dock could have temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey as a result of elevated noise levels from pile driving and removal; however, any impacts are expected to be minor or temporary. Impact pile driving, the loudest noise source, would last for only 10 minutes per day for six non-consecutive days. No dredging or other construction-related activities that could increase turbidity beyond the localized impacts from pile driving would occur.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, Section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as the use of pile hammers has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. As described above, TTS is also a form of Level B harassment. There is some potential for slight auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result (
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of temporary or permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final technical guidance, and are provided in Table 2. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component (
Distances to Level A and Level B thresholds were calculated based on various source levels for a given activity and pile type (
In this section, we provide the information about the presence, density, or group structure of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
Data on marine mammals in the project area is limited. Land-based surveys conducted at Sitka's Whale Park occurred from September through May, annually, from 1994 to 2000 (Straley and Pendell, 2017). From 2000 to 2016, Straley also collected marine mammal data from small vessels throughout the year. There are no density data available; therefore, probability of occurrence based on group sightings and typical group sizes were used in take calculations (Table 5).
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
Because density data are not available for this area, we used group sighting data as an indicator of how often marine mammals may be present during the 16 days of pile driving/removing activity in consideration of the Level A and B harassment zones. We also considered typical group size to determine how many animals may be present on any given day. For all species, we used the following equation to estimate the number of animals, by species, potentially taken from exposure to pile driving and removing noise:
The Sitka Whale Park surveys found humpback whale groups may include up to four individuals. Based on sighting frequency which indicates this species is present more often during winter months when the project would occur, we conservatively estimate that a group of 4 humpback whales may occur within the Level A harassment zone (1,210 m and 1,803 m for 30-in and 48-in pile driving respectively) on any two of the six days of impact pile driving and in the Level B harassment zone on any of the 16 days of pile activities. Therefore, Level A take equals 4 whales times 2 days while Level B take equals 4 whales times 16 days.
For killer whales, it is assumed eight killer whales could be present within the Level B harassment zone on any two days of pile activity; therefore, we are proposing to authorize 16 takes. No Level A take is anticipated due to proposed shut down mitigation measures (see
Harbor porpoise typically travel in groups of five and we anticipate a group could enter the Level A zone on two of the six days of impact pile driving and another group could be present within the Level B zone on two days of the project. Therefore, we anticipate ten Level A takes (five animals × two days) and ten Level B takes (five animals × two days) of harbor porpoise.
Steller sea lions are common in the area during the proposed work with one to ten animals present on any given day of work. We assume that on any day of the 16 days of pile driving, 10 Steller sea lions could be present within Sawmill Cove and another group of 4 Steller sea lions could be present in the farther reaches of the disturbance zone, for a combined Level B exposure of 14 Steller sea lions on each day of pile driving. Therefore, over the course of 16 days of pile driving, we anticipate 224 sea lions may be taken (14 animals × 16 days); however, as described above, this is likely representative of the number of exposures, not individuals taken. No Level A takes of Steller sea lions are anticipated from impact pile driving due to the small harassment zone and mitigation shut down measures (see
Harbor seals are found in the action area throughout the year but in low numbers. Group size is typically one to two animals. It is anticipated that two harbor seals could be present within the Level A zone every other day of the 6 days of impact pile driving. It is also assumed that a group of 2 harbor seals could be encountered in the Level B disturbance zone during the 16 days of pile driving. Therefore, we anticipate 6 Level A takes (2 animals × 3 days) and 32 Level B takes (2 animals × 16 days) of harbor seals.
Duration is a strong driver in identifying distances to Level A thresholds and this must be balanced with expected animal movement. Although the Technical Guidance user spreadsheet identified Level A harassment distances from vibratory pile driving and removal, these distances are incredibly close to the source and an animal would have to remain that close for extended durations (1-5 hours). In contrast, impact threshold distances are much larger and consider only 10 minutes (400 strikes) of activity, making a Level A take more probabilistic. The CBS proposed to shut down operations should a marine mammal enter the Level A zone (0.3 to 48.4 m depending on pile type and if activity is vibratory pile driving or removing) to avoid Level A take. Because we do not expect a marine mammal to remain at these close distances for long periods of time, we do not believe the potential for Level A take exists and; therefore we are not authorizing Level A take from vibratory pile activities and we are not requiring CBS shut down during any activities involving a vibratory hammer unless an animal comes within 10 m which is a zone established to prevent non-auditory physical injury.
For harbor seals and Steller sea lions, the number of animals potentially present likely reflects the same individuals occurring over multiple days; therefore the number of takes likely represents exposures versus individuals. For all cetacean species, it is likely the calculated takes do reflect the number of individuals exposed because they would be expected to be transiting through the action area, not lingering like pinnipeds.
For purposes of ESA consultation, we looked at probability of Steller sea lions and humpback whales from each DPS that may be found in the action area. For Steller sea lions, we determined the probability of an animal being from the wDPS to be 2 percent while the remaining animals would be from the eDPS (see
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation can ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully balance two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, and; (2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The following mitigation measures, designed to minimize noise exposure, would be included in the IHA:
• CBS will first attempt to direct pull old, abandoned piles that would minimize noise input into the marine environment; if those efforts prove to be ineffective, they may proceed with a vibratory hammer.
• CBS will operate the vibratory hammer at a reduced energy setting (30 to 50 percent of its rated energy).
• CBS will use a softening material (
• A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before hammering at full energy. CBS is proposing to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, CBS will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3-strike sets. If any marine mammal is sighted within a shut-down zone during the 30 minute survey prior to pile driving, or during the soft start, CBS will delay pile-driving until the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and on a path away from the area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or small cetaceans) or 30 minutes (for large cetaceans) have elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal within the shut-downzone. This soft-start will be applied prior to beginning pile driving activities each day or when pile driving hammers have been idle for more than 30 minutes.
• CBS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer to the maximum extent possible (
• CBS will implement the shut-down zones identified in Table 7 to minimize harassment.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical to both compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
One land-based protected species observer (PSO) will be present during all pile activity; during impact pile driving, a secondary boat-based PSO will be on watch. The land-based PSO will be located at the GPIP construction site and will be able to view the area across Silver Bay to the west and east of Sugarloaf Point and monitor the mouth of Silver Bay to determine whether marine mammals enter the action area from East Channel of Sitka Sound (the entrance monitoring zone). The PSO will have no other primary duties than watching for and reporting on events related to marine mammals. The PSO will scan the monitoring zone for the presence of listed species for 30 minutes before any pile driving or removal activities take place. Each day prior to commencing in-water work the PSO will conduct a radio check with the construction foreman or superintendent. The PSO will brief the foreman or supervisor as to the shutdown procedures if any marine mammals are observed likely to enter or within a shutdown zone, and will have the foreman brief the crew, requesting that the crew notify the PSO when a marine mammal is spotted. CBS proposed the PSO will work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and will not perform duties as an PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24‐hr period (to reduce PSO fatigue). The PSO will remain onsite each day until all in-water pile driving/removal is completed.
No less than 30 minutes prior to any pile driving, the boat-based PSO will begin monitoring the Level A and B harassment zones A boat-based PSO is not required during timber pile removal due to limited harassment zones. This PSO will transit to the head of Silver Bay to ensure that there are no marine mammals for which take is not authorized or to document species for which take is authorized. The boat-based PSO will communicate with the construction foreman or superintendent once the area is determined to be clear and pile driving activities can begin. The boat-based PSO will then transit back to the construction site and spend the rest of the pile driving time monitoring the area from the boat (see Figure 3 in CBS's application).
If any marine mammals are present within a shutdown zone, pile driving and removal activities will not begin until the animal(s) has left the shutdown zone or no marine mammals have been observed in the shutdown zone for 15 minutes (for pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (for cetaceans). The boat-
The following measures also apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by independent (
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
In addition, CBS must submit to NMFS OPR the curriculum vitae (CV) of all observers prior to monitoring.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving and removal would result in the harassment of marine mammals within the designated harassment zones due to increased noise levels during 16 days. Six days of work are dedicated to removing 280 old piles, which would emit low levels of noise into the aquatic environment if removed via a vibratory hammer. Vibratory pile driving, which also has relatively low source levels, would occur for only 2 hours per day and there would be at least one day in between pile driving activity when installing the permanent piles. Impact pile driving would result in the loudest sound levels; however, CBS would install only 6 piles with an impact hammer (four 30-in and two 48-in piles) to proof the pile after driving it with a vibratory hammer. Proofing a pile is relatively short-term activity with 400 strikes occurring over 10 minutes per pile. Considering this and the fact only one pile would be installed per day, if PTS occurs, it is likely slight PTS (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized.
• The number of piles in the design has been reduced to the lowest amount practicable (other designs required more piles); therefore, the amount of pile activity is minimal at 16 days over the course of 3 months.
• Extremely limited impact pile driving would occur (ten minutes per day for six non-consecutive days).
• The project and ensonified areas include a cove and dead-end bay (Silver Bay) with no significant marine mammal habitat.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
NMFS is proposing to authorize a very small amount of Level A takes of marine mammals. Level B takes are more numerous and still only constitute between 0.12 and 6.5 percent of a given stock (Table 7). For pinnipeds, the number of takes likely represents repeated exposures of a smaller number of animals; therefore, the percent of stock taken is likely even smaller. Finally, the area where these takes may occur represents a negligible area with respect to each stock's range; therefore, it is unlikely a larger percentage of a stock's population would move through the action area.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals,
Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources, including sea lions and harbor seals. In 2012 (the most recent year for which information is available), the community of Sitka had an estimated subsistence take of 49 harbor seals and 1 Steller sea lion (Wolf
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of the wDPS of Steller sea lions and the humpback whale Mexico DPS, which are listed under the ESA. As such, the Permit and Conservation Division has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the NMFS Alaska Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to CBS for conducting pile driving and removal, Sitka, from October 1, 2017-December 31, 2017, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains the conditions that would be included in the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This IHA is valid only for takes of marine mammals incidental to pile driving and pile removal associated with the Gary Paxton Industrial Park Dock Modification Project in Sawmill Cove, Alaska.
2.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the CBS, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the humpback whale (
(c) The taking, by Level A and B harassment is authorized for humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and harbor seal. Take, by Level B harassment only, is authorized for killer whales and Steller sea lions.
(d) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species listed in condition 2(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The take, by Level A harassment, of killer whales and Steller sea lions is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(f) The CBS shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
3.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) CBS will first attempt to direct pull old, abandoned piles; if those efforts prove to be ineffective, they may proceed with a vibratory hammer.
(b) CBS will operate the vibratory hammer during pile driving at a reduced energy setting (30-50 percent).
(c) CBS will use a will use a softening material (
(d) A “soft start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before hammering at full energy. The soft start requires CBS to initiate noise from vibratory hammers for 15 seconds at reduced energy followed by 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times. If an impact hammer is used, CBS will be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a one minute waiting period, then two subsequent 3-strike sets. This soft-start will be applied prior to beginning pile driving activities each day or when pile driving hammers have been idle for more than 30 minutes.
(e) If any marine mammal is sighted within a shut-down zone prior to pile-driving, or during the soft start, CBS will delay pile-driving until the animal is confirmed to have moved outside and on a path away from the area or if 15 minutes (for pinnipeds or small cetaceans) or 30 minutes (for large cetaceans) have elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal within the safety zone.
(f) CBS will drive all piles with a vibratory hammer until a desired depth is achieved or to refusal prior to using an impact hammer. CBS will also use the minimum impact hammer energy needed to safely install the piles.
(g) For all pile driving and pile removal activities, the entity shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, such operations shall cease. For impact pile driving, CBS shall implement a shutdown zone based on species observed (See Table 2 for minimum radial distances required for shutdown zones).
4.
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during all pile driving and pile removal activities. Monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the application.
(a) One land-based PSO and one boat-based PSO will be used to monitor the area during all pile driving and removing the temporary piles (no boat-based PSO is required during timber pile removal). The land-based PSO will be located at the GPIP construction site.
(b) The land-based PSO will scan the monitoring zone for the presence of listed species for 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after any pile driving or removal activities take place.
(c) The land-based PSO will work in shifts lasting no longer than 4 hours with at least a 1-hour break between shifts, and will not perform duties as a PSO for more than 12 hours in a 24-hr period. The PSO will remain onsite each
(d) No less than 30 minutes prior to any pile driving, the boat-based PSO will begin monitoring the Level B harassment zone. Note a boat-based PSO is not required during timber pile removal. This PSO will transit to the head of Silver Bay to ensure there are no marine mammals for which take is not authorized or to document species for which take is authorized. The boat-based PSO will communicate with the construction foreman or superintendent once the area is determined to be clear and pile driving activities can begin. The boat-based PSO will then transit back to the mouth of Sawmill Cove and spend the rest of the pile driving time monitoring the area from the boat.
(e) Monitoring will be conducted by independent (
(i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(ii) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);
(iii) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
(iv) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(v) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(vi) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(vii) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(f) In addition, CBS must submit to NMFS the curriculum vitae (CV) of all observers prior to monitoring.
5.
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report to NMFS on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 calendar days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring or sixty days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to NMFS within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report shall include details within the Monitoring Plan and the following:
(i) The amount, by species, of Level A and B takes documented. Total Level B take should be corrected for any area unobserved.
(ii) Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile driving and removal activities and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any.
(iii) Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as a serious injury, or mortality, CBS shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
1. Time and date of the incident;
2. Description of the incident;
3. Environmental conditions (
4. Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
5. Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
6. Fate of the animal(s); and
7. Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with CBS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. CBS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that CBS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
The report must include the same information identified in 5(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with CBS to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that CBS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed pile driving and removal. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection for use under Control Number 0704-0386 through September 30, 2017. DoD proposes that OMB approve an extension of the information collection requirement, to expire three years after the approval date.
DoD will consider all comments received by September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0386, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Jennifer Johnson, at 571-372-6106. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on at:
This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 219, Small Business Programs. The information collection requirement at DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, becomes necessary when: (1) A prime contractor has identified specific small business concerns in its subcontracting plan; and (2) subsequent to award substitutes one of the small businesses identified in its subcontracting plan with a firm that is not a small business. The intent of this information collection is to alert the contracting officer of this situation.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0252, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Carrie Moore, 571-372-6104. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at:
This information collection includes requirements relating to DFARS part 251, Contractor Use of Government Supply Sources. The clause at DFARS 252.251-7000, Ordering from Government Supply Sources, requires a contractor to provide a copy of an authorization when placing an order under a Federal Supply Schedule, a Personal Property Rehabilitation Price Schedule, or an Enterprise Software Agreement.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed revision of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed revision of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection for use through September 30, 2017. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
DoD will consider all comments received by September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0446, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Carrie Moore, at 571-372-6093. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available on the World Wide Web at:
For solicitations that include the provision at DFARS 252.215-7005, the provision requires offerors to include documentation with their proposal that supports their intent to use employees or individual subcontractors who are members of the Selected Reserve in order to receive a preference under the associated evaluation factor. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, existing company documentation indicating the names of the Selected Reserve members who are currently employed by the company, or a statement that positions will be set aside to be filled by Selected Reserve members, along with verifying documentation.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for generic collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 25, 2017.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OUSD AT&L), Manufacturing and Industrial Based Policy (MIBP), ATTN: Jonathan Wright, Alexandria, VA 22350-6500, or call MIBP, at 571-372-6271.
Respondents are companies/facilities specifically identified as being of interest to the Department of Defense. Industrial Capabilities Questionnaire DD Form 2737 records pertinent information needed to conduct industrial base analysis for senior DoD leadership to ensure a robust defense industrial base to support the warfighter.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB), Contingency Liaison Office, ATTN: Major Leah Chapman, 2460 Linden Lane, Bldg. 172, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or call the AFPMB Contingency Liaison Office at 301-295-7476.
Respondents are DoD-contracted pest managers. These pest management professionals would be required to fill out the certificate of disinsection, log it in the appropriate database, and provide a copy to the aircrew. Aircraft disinsection (spraying with insecticide to kill all insects aboard) is currently required in 14 countries for arriving military aircraft. Most of those countries also require documentation proving that the aircraft was disinsected, per their instructions in the Foreign Clearance Guide (FCG). The burden for this collection is calculated based on the number of times U.S. aircraft currently enter countries with the requirement to produce a certificate of disinsection. The certificates used, are unique to each of the countries with the requirement. They are not collections managed by the U.S. Government. The Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB) published Technical Guide (TG) for pest managers and aircrew to follow. This guide standardizes our requirements for disinsection in the FCG for all countries our aircraft enter. One such requirement is the use of a standardized form by all DoD that satisfies the documentation requirements of disinsection for these 14 countries.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-04 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested the continuation of a naval blanket order training program inside and outside of Saudi Arabia that includes, but is not limited to English Language training, professional military education, technical training, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated value is $250 million.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a
The proposed sale will enable Saudi Arabia and the Royal Saudi Naval Force (RSNF) to maintain military performance levels and provide an increased ability to meet current and future maritime threats. The training will support the RSNF in its role patrolling and providing protection for critical industrial infrastructure and for the sea lines of communications. The RSNF will also use the training to enhance interoperability with the United States and other coalition maritime forces. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing these services.
The proposed sale of this training will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Kratos Defense & Security Solutions of San Diego, CA. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of approximately 88 contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia for approximately three years to support personnel training. Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government representatives to Saudi Arabia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 25, 2017.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
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 the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-523, (Application for Authorization for the Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by August 25, 2017.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0043, 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. IC17-12-000, by either of the following methods:
• eFiling at Commission's Web site:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission uses the information contained in filings to determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or liability by the public utilities and their licensees who submit these applications.
The specific application requirements and filing format are found at 18 CFR part 34; and 18 CFR 131.43 and 131.50. This information is filed electronically.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on July 18, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016), Belle Fourche Pipeline Company (Belle Fourche) and Bridger Pipeline LLC (Bridger), filed a petition seeking a declaratory order approving the overall tariff and rate structure set forth in the transportation service agreement governing the transportation of crude oil on Belle Fourche and Bridger's pipeline systems, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of settlement.
Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC, and Hexion Inc. concerning the Coronet Industries Site located in Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for response actions performed by the EPA at the Site.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until August 25, 2017. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement.
This notice announces the availability for review and comment of a proposed administrative settlement agreement under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and 953 N Sycamore (LA), LLC (“Sycamore LLC”), regarding the Sycamore Superfund Removal Site in Hollywood, California. The Settlement Agreement requires the purchaser to conduct a removal action to address soil and soil gas contamination at the Sycamore Site.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-SFUND-2017-03, to the
Taly Jolish, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; tel: (415) 972-3925; fax: (415) 947-3570;
Sycamore LLC is agreeing to perform a removal action to clean up soil and soil gas contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, and with aromatic VOCs, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. The removal action will reduce the risk to future users of the property and the surrounding community from exposure to contamination primarily caused by historical dry cleaning operations at the property. Under the terms of the settlement, Sycamore LLC will complete the removal action and pay EPA's costs for oversight of the cleanup activities. In exchange, Sycamore LLC will receive a covenant not to sue from the United States.
EPA will consider all comments submitted by the date set forth above and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on its analysis of the upstream greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the production of
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771, at
Christopher Ramig, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1372; fax number: 202-564-1177; email address:
This notice is organized as follows:
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act establishes the renewable fuel standard (“RFS”) program, under which EPA sets annual percentage standards specifying the amount of renewable fuel, as well as three subcategories of renewable fuel, that must be used to reduce or replace fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. With limited exceptions, renewable fuel produced at facilities that commenced construction after enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”), must achieve at least a twenty percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as compared to baseline 2005 transportation fuel. Advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel must achieve at least a fifty percent reduction, and cellulosic biofuel must achieve at least a sixty percent reduction.
As part of changes to the RFS program regulations published on March 26, 2010
EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions, such as indirect emissions from land use changes and agricultural sector impacts.
This document describes EPA's analysis of the GHG emissions from feedstock production and feedstock transport associated with sugar beets when used to produce biofuel, including significant indirect impacts. This notice considers a scenario in which non-cellulosic beet sugar (primarily sucrose, glucose and/or fructose) is extracted for conversion to biofuel and the remaining beet pulp co-product is used as animal feed. As will be described in Section II, we estimate the GHG emissions associated with production and transport of sugar beets for use as a biofuel feedstock are approximately 45 kilograms of CO
If appropriate, EPA will update this analysis based on comments received in response to this notice. EPA will use this updated analysis as part of the evaluation of facility-specific petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use sugar beets as a feedstock for the production of biofuel.
Sugar beets are a biennial crop species grown across a wide tolerance of soil conditions in areas of temperate climate, and tend to be grown in rotation with other plant varieties.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the largest region for sugar beet production is the area of the Red River Valley of western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, and sugar beets are commonly grown at agricultural scale across five regions of the country, encompassing 11 states.
Since the mid-1990s, sugar beets have accounted for about 55 percent of sugar production in the U.S.
Like other sugars, beet sugar can be fermented and used as a feedstock for biofuel production. The non-cellulosic sugars of sugar beets, the vast majority of which is sucrose, can be converted directly into a refined sugar available for processes such as alcoholic fermentation to produce biofuels (
EPA evaluated the upstream GHG emissions associated with using sugar beets as a biofuel feedstock based on information provided by USDA, petitioners, and other data sources. Upstream GHG emissions include emissions from production and transport of sugar beets used as a biofuel feedstock. The methodology EPA used for this analysis is generally the same approach used for the March 2010 RFS rule for lifecycle analyses of several other biofuel feedstocks, such as corn, soybean oil, and sugarcane.
The analysis EPA prepared for sugar beets used the same set of models that were used for the March 2010 RFS rule, including the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) developed by Texas A&M University for domestic impacts, and the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (FAPRI-CARD) at Iowa State University for international impacts. For more information on the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, refer to the March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
Sugar beets grown under the U.S. sugar program cannot be used for the purpose of biofuel production, except under very limited conditions specified in the Feedstock Flexibility Program.
Our analysis also considers the significant restrictions on the trade of sugar beets between the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. does not export beet sugar, as this would violate the terms of participation in the sugar program. While the U.S. does import cane sugar under international agreements, it does not import raw beet sugar.
Although sugar beets were modeled as grown in the U.S., we also intend that this analysis would cover sugar beets grown and processed into biofuels from other countries and imported to the U.S. as finished biofuel. We expect the vast majority of beet sugar-based biofuel used in the U.S. will come from sugar beets produced in the U.S., and incidental amounts of fuel from crops produced in other nations will not impact our average GHG emissions. Sugar beets require similar climatic regions as those where they are grown in the U.S., and would similarly impact crops such as wheat in those regions while sugar beet pulp would displace corn as livestock feed. Therefore, EPA interprets this upstream analysis as applicable, regardless of the country of origin assuming that sugar beet pulp is used as a livestock feed supplement.
To assess the impacts of an increase in sugar beet demand for renewable fuel production, EPA modeled two scenarios: (1) A control case with “business-as-usual” assumptions
The analysis presented in this notice does not include fuel production or “downstream” emissions, which consists of emissions associated with fuel transport and fuel combustion. Once comments on the upstream emissions described in this notice have been considered, we intend to combine the upstream analysis with the fuel production and downstream emissions associated with fuel produced at an individual biofuel facility to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with that fuel. This lifecycle analysis would reflect any differences in emissions that may exist between producing different types of biofuels from sugar beets. Our analysis of the upstream emissions associated with sugar beets assumed that non-cellulosic sugars are extracted from the beets before the sugars are converted, and that the beet pulp would then be sold into feed markets. Fuel production methods that also convert the pulp into fuel (
We evaluated a scenario with biofuels produced from this amount of sugar beets for multiple reasons. Although biofuel production from sugar beets is currently small in the U.S., recent trends in domestic sugar beet yields and acreage indicate that 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets could be produced as biofuel feedstocks if a significant market demand emerged. An additional 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets would represent a 34 percent increase in U.S. sugar beet cultivation compared to 2015 levels.
In our analysis, FASOM allowed for sugar beet production in all areas of the continental 48 states where sugar beets had been grown historically, including states and areas that do not currently take part in the U.S. sugar program. The model was allowed to determine which of these regions would be optimal for growing sugar beets for biofuel feedstock, based on least cost of production and transport, and considering the opportunity cost of using that land for other uses (
Following the methodology established in the March 2010 RFS rule, EPA used the FAPRI model to evaluate the international impacts of producing and transporting 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for biofuel production in the U.S. The FAPRI model included a representation of the U.S. sugar program, and modeled domestic sugar production as a function of this program. Production and consumption levels in the U.S. were set according to the parameters of the sugar program and were not affected by market forces. Because the existing U.S. sugar production module in FAPRI did not respond to market forces, for modeling purposes EPA had to make assumptions regarding in which regions sugar beets for biofuel feedstock use would be grown. Crop yields and the quantity of crop area displaced by expanded sugar beet production also had to be set by assumption, since the U.S. sugar module in FAPRI lacks market forces to create demand-pull for new beet acres. In order to derive the quantity of crop area displaced, EPA used a crop yield of approximately 26 wet short tons per acre, the 10-year national average yield for sugar beets (for crop years 2005 through 2014).
For the purposes of FAPRI modeling, EPA assumed that sugar beets for fuel use would be produced in equal amounts in North Dakota and California for the following reasons: At the onset of our analysis, these were the regions with indications of significant sugar beet biofuel interest.
The sugar beet scenario modeled included a number of key assumptions, such as biofuel and pulp yields per wet short ton of beets, and the amount of corn livestock feed displaced per pound of pulp. These key assumptions are discussed below. Information on additional assumptions, including sugar beet crop inputs (
In conducting research for this analysis, we located sources for beet pulp yield of 0.06 dry short tons of sugar beet pulp per wet short tons of sugar beets
On the basis of least cost, FASOM chose to grow all sugar beets in North Dakota, with approximately 477,000 acres of land required to grow the additional sugar beets.
The vast majority of the new sugar beet acres in North Dakota was from displacement of other crops rather than from new cropland (432,000 acres from displaced crops, or nearly 91 percent of needed acres). Increasing sugar beet production in North Dakota primarily displaced wheat acreage, but also soybeans, corn, and hay among other crops.
The reductions
In the case of corn, the potential market impacts were mitigated by the increased availability of sugar beet pulp into U.S. feed markets as a result of beet sugar biofuel production. As described in Section II.A, sugar beet pulp is a co-product used as livestock feed supplement, mainly substituting for corn. Based on the FASOM results for 2022, approximately 1.4 billion pounds of sugar beet pulp were produced and sent to the feed market. In turn this displaced approximately 1.2 billion pounds of corn, which was significantly greater than the approximately 867 million pounds of corn production lost to displaced acres. This led to a decrease in total demand for corn in U.S. markets and, as a result, U.S. exports of corn increased. As discussed in Section II.B.3 below, this reduced the price of corn internationally and lessened the demand pull for corn to be grown in other countries.
The rest of the needed sugar beet acres in North Dakota, approximately 46,000 acres, came from new cropland, particularly from cropland pasture (high-value pasture land that can also be utilized as cropland with minimal preparation) and from acres that would otherwise take part in the Conservation Reserve Program. Pasture area rose modestly in some other states causing the conversion of some forest acres to pasture. This relatively small decrease in forestland pushed up prices slightly for forest products, leading foresters to intensify growth on their stands. Relative to other feedstocks EPA has evaluated for the RFS program, these domestic shifts in land use were minor, and after the various land use changes were considered the net domestic land use change emissions impacts were close to zero.
In the FAPRI model, the expansion of sugar beet cropland used to produce biofuel feedstock also led to increases in corn exports and decreases in wheat exports. Similar to the drivers of the
With sugar beet pulp displacing corn feed, FAPRI modeling indicated that in 2022, both corn production and acreage would decline globally. Production outside the U.S. of certain other crops however increased in response to U.S. increasing demand for sugar beets; most significantly wheat and soybeans. Wheat increased internationally in terms of both production and acreage, with a strong response particularly in India. Soybean acres and production also increased, particularly in Brazil. Table II.3 below summarizes the non-U.S. increases in harvested area by crop type, while Table II.4 shows which countries had the largest impacts.
As increasing
When harvested, sugar beets are heavy and perishable; therefore, transport of sugar beets from field to processing site is expected to occur over short distances. Information from stakeholders and literature states that sugar beets used for biofuels are shipped by truck from point of production to the plant with typical distances for transport around 30 miles.
As described above, EPA analyzed the GHG emissions associated with feedstock production and transport. Table II.5 below breaks down by stage the calculated GHG upstream emissions for producing biofuels from sugar beets in 2022.
Net agricultural emissions included domestic and international impacts related to changes in crop inputs such as fertilizer, energy used in agriculture, livestock production, and other agricultural changes in the scenario modeled. Increased demand for sugar beets resulted in positive net agricultural emissions relative to the control case. Compared with other crops, sugar beets required relatively high levels of agricultural chemical inputs (
International land use change emissions increased as a result of demand for sugar beets. The increase in international land use change emissions for sugar beets was significantly larger than the decrease in domestic land use change emissions. This is because increased demand for sugar beets led to a significant reduction in key U.S. crop exports (
Sugar beets are suitable for the same biofuel conversion processes as sugarcane. In Europe, where sugar beets are widely used as biofuel feedstock, virtually all of the fuel is non-cellulosic beet sugar ethanol produced through fermentation with the beet pulp sold into the feed markets. Based on these data, and on information from our petitioners and other stakeholders, EPA anticipates that most biofuel produced from sugar beets in the U.S. would also be from the non-cellulosic sugars via fermentation. Our upstream analysis would apply for all facilities where non-cellulosic beet sugar is converted to biofuel and the co-product beet pulp is used as animal feed.
Given the importance of the beet pulp co-product on the upstream GHG emissions associated with beet pulp, pathways that do not produce a beet pulp feed coproduct, or use it for purposes other than animal feed, may not be compatible with our analysis. EPA would likely need to conduct supplemental upstream GHG analysis in order to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with fuels produced under these types of pathways.
After reviewing comments received in response to this action, EPA will combine the evaluation of upstream GHG emissions associated with the use of sugar beet feedstock with an evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to determine whether fuel produced at petitioners' facilities from the sugar in sugar beets satisfy the CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for renewable fuels. Each biofuel producer seeking to generate Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel from sugar beets will need to submit a petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their new renewable fuel pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and include all of the information specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1).
Because EPA is evaluating the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of sugar beet feedstock through this notice and comment process, petitioners requesting EPA's evaluation of biofuel pathways involving sugar beet feedstock need not include the information for new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(2). Based on our evaluation of the upstream GHG emissions attributable to the production and transport of sugar beet feedstock, including our assumptions regarding the average yield of ethanol in mmBtu per wet short ton of sugar beets used, EPA anticipates that if a facility produces emissions of no more than approximately 23 kgCO
Sugar beets were not listed on the Federal noxious weed list nor did they appear on USDA's composite listing of introduced, invasive, and noxious plants by U.S state.
EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of sugar beets as a feedstock for biofuel production. This notice analyzes a non-cellulosic sugar beet-to-biofuel production process. Although EPA has not received a petition for cellulosic sugar beet biofuel production, the agency is aware of interest in this process and invites comment on the analysis of beet pulp and its effect on agricultural markets. EPA will consider public comments received when evaluating petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that involve pathways using sugar beets as a feedstock.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the chartered SAB to: Conduct three quality reviews of (1) the SAB peer review of EPA's Draft Assessment entitled
The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 29, 2017, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, August 30, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Residence Inn Arlington Capital View, 2850 South Potomac Ave., Arlington, VA 22202.
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning the meeting may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail (202) 564-4885, or email at
Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the EPA's charge, meeting materials, or the group providing advice. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
1. PP 6E8503. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0600). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.589 for residues of the fungicide, boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide,2-chloro-N-(4′-chloro[1,1′-biphenyl]-2-yl) in or on Vegetable, legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A from 1.6 ppm to 5.0 ppm. Gas chromatography using mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical in dry and succulent beans and peas. Contact: RD.
2. PP 6E8484. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests that upon establishing tolerances for this petition under “New Tolerances” above, 40 CFR part 180.475 is amended to remove existing tolerances for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4- chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, including its metabolites and degradates, to be determined by measuring only difenoconazole in or on brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.9 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 35 ppm; grape at 4.0 ppm; and turnip, greens at 35 ppm. Contact: RD.
3. PP 6F8517. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0639). Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 2255 N. 44th St., Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85008, requests to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.415 for residues of the fungicide, aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate), in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10 from 5.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm. Adequate enforcement methodology available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM II, Method II) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical in the above citrus group. Contact: RD.
1. PP 6F8514. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0185). FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, plant regulator, and nematocide
2. PP 6F8515. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0186). FMC Corporation, FMC Tower at Cira Centre South, 2929 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide and plant regulator
1. PP 6E8484. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254). IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.475 for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4- methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, including its metabolites and degradates, to be determined by measuring only difenoconazole in or on brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 35 ppm; cranberry at 0.6 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 4.0 ppm; guava at 3.0 ppm; kohlrabi at 2.0 ppm; papaya at 0.6 ppm; and vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 2.0 ppm. Available analytical methods for crops include gas chromatography (GC) equipped with a nitrogen -phosphorous detector; and LC/MS/MS; and for meat, milk, poultry or eggs, Syngenta's method, AG544A, is used to measure and evaluate the chemical difenoconazole. Contact: RD.
2. PP 6F8499. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0752). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40
3. PP 6F8522. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0754). Nufarm Americas Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Parkway, Suite 101, Morrisville, NC 27545., requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the bactericide/fungicide oxytetracycline in or on citrus, group 10-10, at 0.6 parts per million (ppm) and citrus, dried pulp, at 1.2 ppm. The LC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical oxytetracycline, utilizing turbo ion spray in the positive ionization mode. Contact: RD.
4. PP 6F8542. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide benzovindiflupyr in or on grasses grown for seed, hay at 7 parts per million (ppm); grasses grown for seed, straw at 6ppm and grasses grown for seed, forage at .15 ppm. The GRM042.03A and GRM042.04A methods for plant products are used to measure and evaluate the chemical benzovindiflupyr. Contact: RD.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications. EPA received the following applications to register new active ingredients:
7 U.S.C. 136
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10314 Allegiance Bank of North America, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Allegiance Bank of North America (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective July 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On April 28, 2017, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of these collections, and again invites comment on this renewal.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 25, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza or Jennifer Jones, at the FDIC address above.
On April 28, 2017, (82 FR 19718), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the renewal of these collections, and again invites comment on this renewal.
1.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the same.
2.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation as well as the change in complexity of the reporting institutions. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response have increased due to the complexity of the reporting institutions.
3.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the same.
4.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall reduction in burden hours is a result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response remain the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago on July 20, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
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 21, 2017.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 10, 2017.
1.
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 21, 2017.
1.
July 26, 2017, Noon.
1700 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20006.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting.
Closed to the public.
Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) (OMB Control Number 0920-1128, exp. 8/31/2018)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2013, there were nearly 44,000 drug overdose deaths, including nearly 36,000 unintentional drug overdose deaths, in the United States. More people are now dying of drug overdose than automobile crashes in the US. A major driver of the problem are overdoses related to opioids, both opioid pain relievers (OPRs) and illicit forms such as heroin. In order to address this public health problem, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has made addressing the opioid abuse problem a high priority.
In order to support targeting of drug overdose prevention efforts, detect new trends in fatal unintentional drug overdoses, and assess the progress of HHS's initiative to reduce opioid abuse and overdoses, the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System (SUDORS) conducts ongoing surveillance of fatal unintentional opioid-related drug overdoses to support prevention and response efforts in states with a high burden of opioid-related overdoses. This collection generates public health surveillance information on unintentional fatal opioid-related drug overdoses at the national, state, and local levels that is more detailed, useful, and timely than is currently available. This information will help develop, inform, and assess the progress of drug overdose prevention strategies at the national, state, and local levels.
SUDORS will collect information that is not currently collected on death certificates such as whether the drug(s) causing the overdoses were injected or taken orally, a toxicology report on the decedent, if available, and risk factors for fatal drug overdoses including previous drug overdoses, decedent's mental health, and whether the decedent recently exited a treatment program. Without this information, drug overdose efforts are often based on limited information available on the death certificate and anecdotal evidence.
CDC is expanding the state opioid surveillance program to include additional states. In fiscal year 2016, CDC was appropriated funds to work with state health departments to improve the timeliness of fatal opioid overdose surveillance by developing the Enhanced State Opioid Overdose Surveillance program (ESOOS), with 16 states originally approved. ESOOS provides states a delivery schedule for reporting fatal opioid overdoses to CDC using SUDORS. In fiscal year 2017, ESOOS received a significant increase in funding through congressional appropriation to expand the number of states using the SUDORS OMB package for mortality data collection. The next data delivery will occur in October 2017. As a result, CDC now requests OMB approval for three years for this revision to include all 50 states.
The purpose of the revision is twofold: (1) Increase burden hours associated with increasing the number of states using the SUDORS OMB package from the 16 approved to all 50 states; and (2) implement updates to the web-based system to improve performance, functionality, and accessibility as well as minimal revisions to the SUDORS collection instrument. Minimal changes to the SUDORS module include revisions to question wording and response choices, as well as additional categories available to capture information that previously could only be captured in a narrative field, to better capture contextual information such as day/time a decedent was last seen alive, whether a decedent had a recent opioid use relapse, evidence of prescription drug use, and evidence of rapid overdose. These changes would not affect burden hours per response, the increase in burden hours is associated with increasing the number of states using the SUDORS OMB package from the 16 approved to all 50 states.
Participation is based on secondary data and is dependent on separate data collection efforts in each state managed by the state health departments or their bona fide agent. The estimated annual burden hours are 16,550 with an increase of 9,542 burden hours from the previously approved collection. There are no costs to respondents.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice and extension of comment period.
On September 15, 2016 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published a notice in the
Written comments were to be received by December 7, 2016. NIOSH initially extended the public comment period to June 7, 2017 [81 FR 88687]. NIOSH extended the comment period again to August 30, 2017 [82 FR 25290]. NIOSH is extending the public comment period to close on February 28, 2018. The longer timeframe will allow companies to test the protocol with the proposed challenge agents and permit full participation in the protocol design process.
Deborah V. Hirst, NIOSH, Alice Hamilton Laboratories, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS R-5, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, telephone (513) 841-4141 (not a toll free number), Email:
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2016-0090 and Docket Number NIOSH 288-A, by either of the following two methods:
•
•
CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Building 102, Conference Room 2202, Atlanta, Georgia 30341.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the meeting of the BSC, NCEH/ATSDR. This meeting is open to the public. The meeting room accommodates approximately 60 people. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number, 1-888-790-2009 Passcode: 7865774. The deadline for notification of attendance is August 30, 2017. The public comment period is scheduled on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 from 2:00 p.m. until 2:15 p.m.; from 2:40 p.m. until 2:55 p.m.; and from 3:25 p.m. until 3:40 p.m., and on Thursday, September 14, 2017 from 10:10 a.m. until 10:25 a.m. EDT (15 minutes). Individuals wishing to make a comment during Public Comment period, please email your name, organization, and phone number by Monday, September 4, 2017 to Dr. William Cibulas at
The Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by delegation, the Director, CDC and Administrator, NCEH/ATSDR, are authorized under Section 301 (42 U.S.C. 241) and Section 311 (42 U.S.C. 243) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, to: (1) Conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases and other impairments; (2) assist states and their political subdivisions in the prevention of infectious diseases and other preventable conditions and in the promotion of health and wellbeing; and (3) train state and local personnel in health work. The BSC, NCEH/ATSDR provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, HHS; the Director, CDC and Administrator, ATSDR; and the Director, NCEH/ATSDR, regarding program goals, objectives, strategies, and priorities in fulfillment of the agency's mission to protect and promote people's health. The Board provides advice and guidance that will assist NCEH/ATSDR in ensuring scientific quality, timeliness, utility, and dissemination of results. The Board also provides guidance to help NCEH/ATSDR work more efficiently and effectively with its various constituents and to fulfill its mission in protecting America's health. The agenda items for the BSC Meeting will include NCEH/ATSDR Director Updates; Noise-Induced Hearing Loss; NCEH/ATSDR Program Responses to BSC Guidance and Action Items; Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Updates; Flint Registry; Revision of blood lead level reference value (status); Discussion of Legislative Requirements of new Lead Exposure Poisoning Federal Advisory Committee; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Program Update; Environmental Health Tracking Program update; updates from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the US Department of Energy and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Shirley Little, NCEH/ATSDR, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop F-45, Atlanta, Georgia 30341; Telephone 770/488-0577, Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
NCHS Headquarters, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee. This meeting is open to the public; however, visitors must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures. For foreign nationals or non-U.S. citizens, pre-approval is required (please contact Gwen Mustaf, 301-458-4500,
This committee is charged with providing advice and making recommendations to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCHS, regarding the scientific and technical program goals and objectives, strategies, and priorities of NCHS. The agenda includes welcome remarks by NCHS leadership; update from the Division of Health Care Statistics; update on National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) activities; update on improving data collection.
Requests to make oral presentations should be submitted in writing to the contact person listed below. All requests must contain the name, address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation of the presenter. Written comments should not exceed five single-spaced typed pages in length and must be received by August 22, 2017. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D., Director of Extramural Research, NCHS/CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 2627, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4500, email
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 25, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CMS updated the web portal system where state Departments of Insurance and issuers log in using a custom user ID and password validation. The states are asked to provide information on issuers in their state and various Web sites maintained for consumers. The issuers are also tasked with providing information on their major medical insurance products and plans. They are ultimately given the choice to download a basic information template to enter data then upload into the web portal; to manually enter data within the web portal itself; or to submit .xml files containing their information. Once the states and issuers submit their data, they will receive an email notifying them of any errors, and that their submission was received.
CMS mandates that issuers verify and update their information on a quarterly basis and requests that States verify State-submitted information on an annual basis. In the event that an issuer enhances its existing plans, proposes new plans, or deactivates plans, the organization would be required to update the information in the web portal. Changes occurring during the three month quarterly periods will be allowed utilizing effective dates for both the plans and rates associated with the plans.
6.
Under Section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing regulation at 45 CFR part 153, issuers of qualified health plans (QHPs) must participate in a risk corridors program. A QHP issuer will pay risk corridors charges or be eligible to receive payments based on the ratio of the issuer's allowable costs to the target amount. Each QHP issuer is required to submit an annual report to CMS concerning the issuer's allowable costs, allowable administrative costs, premium, and proportion of market premium in QHPs. Risk corridors premium information that is specific to an issuer's QHPs is collected through a separate plan-level data form, which is included in this information collection. Additionally, each QHP issuer is required to maintain for a period of ten years all documents, records and other evidence sufficient to enable the evaluation of the issuer's compliance with applicable risk corridors standards.
On May 2, 2017, CMS published a 60-day notice in the
CMS received a total of six comments on a number of specific issues regarding the notice of the revised MLR PRA package. CMS has taken into consideration all of the comments and has modified the information collection instruments and instructions (the 2016 MLR Annual Reporting Form and Instructions; no comments were submitted on the 2016 Risk Corridors Plan-Level Data Form and Instructions) in order to correct errors and to provide additional clarifications. These modifications do not affect the previously estimated burden hours or costs.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) recently announced the awarding of the University of Massachusetts-Boston to the Institute of Community Inclusion (ICI). The University of Massachusetts-Boston will maintain and advance the longitudinal study describing day and employment services nationwide for individuals with developmental disabilities.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) recently announced the awarding of the University of Minnesota to the Residential Information System Project (RISP). The University of Minnesota will maintain and continue the longitudinal study of annual state-by-state and national statistics on residential services and supports for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) recently announced the awarding of the University of Colorado for the State of the States in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (State of the States) project. The University of Colorado will maintain and advance a comparative nationwide longitudinal study of public financial commitments and programmatic trends in developmental disabilities services and supports.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers Related to Self-Identification of Facilities, Review of Generic Drug Submissions, and Inspections and Compliance.” The Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) are designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and to improve the review process for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). This guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions from the generic drug industry and other interested parties involved in the development and/or testing of generic drug products regarding the requirements and commitments of GDUFA. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance originally issued in August 2012 and issued in revised draft form in September 2013.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time.
You may submit comments as follows:
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
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Sonia Kim, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President on July 9, 2012. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and to improve the review process for ANDAs. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to support critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program.
On August 27, 2012, FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers” (77 FR 51814). On September 10, 2013, FDA announced the availability of a revised version of this guidance (78 FR 55261). The comment period on the revised draft guidance ended on December 11, 2013 (78 FR 70953). FDA received several comments on the draft guidance, and these comments as well as FDA's experience implementing GDUFA were considered as the guidance was finalized.
This guidance is intended to provide answers to common questions from generic drug industry participants and other interested parties involved in the development and/or testing of generic drug products regarding FDA's implementation of GDUFA. This guidance includes three categories of questions and answers: Self-identification of facilities, sites, and organizations; review of generic drug submissions; and inspections and compliance. The draft versions of this guidance also addressed the subject of fees. The portion of the draft guidance relating to fees was updated and finalized in November 2016 (81 FR 81774, November 18, 2016).
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers Related to Self- Identification of Facilities, Review of Generic Drug Submissions, and Inspections and Compliance.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Consumer Antiseptic Wash Final Rule Questions and Answers.” We are issuing this guidance in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to assist small businesses in better understanding and complying with the consumer antiseptic wash final rule, which established that certain active ingredients, including triclosan, used in over-the-counter (OTC) consumer antiseptic wash products are not generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). This guidance explains the scope of the final rule, how and when manufacturers must comply with the final rule, and which consumer antiseptic wash active ingredients were deferred from the final rule.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
You may submit comments as follows:
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
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Pranvera Ikonomi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5418, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0272.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Consumer Antiseptic Wash Final Rule Questions and Answers.” We are issuing this guidance in accordance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28)
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on how small businesses can better understand and comply with the consumer antiseptic wash final rule. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. The meeting will be open to the public. This meeting will be the inaugural meeting of a new advisory committee.
The meeting will be held on October 11, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and October 12, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Grand Ballroom, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone number is 301-977-8900. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Letise Williams, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8398, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
This meeting is a key part of FDA's goal to help assure the needs and experiences of patients are included as part of FDA's deliberations involving the regulation of medical devices and their use by patients. For this meeting, FDA is seeking input from the PEAC and the public on topics such as to: (1) Better understand challenges for patients in medical device clinical trials, (2) better understand how patient input and engagement is being used to overcome these challenges (potential solutions), and (3) receive
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (ACTPCMD) has scheduled a meeting. This meeting will be open to the public. Information about ACTPCMD and the agenda for this meeting can be found on the ACTPCMD Web site at
August 16, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. ET.
This meeting will be held by webinar and teleconference. The address for the meeting is 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
•
•
Anyone requesting information regarding ACTPCMD should contact Kennita R. Carter, MD, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Division of Medicine and Dentistry, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Kennita R. Carter, MD, DFO, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 15N-116, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call 301-945-3505; or (3) send an email to
ACTPCMD provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) on policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning the activities under section 747 of Title VII of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, including dentistry activities. ACTPCMD prepares an annual report describing the activities of the Committee, including findings and recommendations made by the Committee concerning the activities under section 747, including dentistry activities. The annual report is submitted to the Secretary and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee also develops, publishes, and implements performance measures and guidelines for longitudinal evaluations of programs authorized under Title VII, Part C, of the PHS Act, and recommends appropriation levels for programs under this Part.
During the August 16, 2017, meeting, ACTPCMD will discuss issues related to the Committee reports under development. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to ACTPCMD should be sent to Kennita R. Carter, MD, DFO, using the contact information above at least 3 business days prior to the meeting.
Individuals who need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Dr. Kennita R. Carter at the address and phone number listed above at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 25, 2017.
Submit your comments to
Sherrette Funn, Report Clearance Officer, at either
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
The Agency received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the May 8, 2017, issue of the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, August 01, 2017, 12:00 p.m. to August 02, 2017, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on August 1, 2017 and will start at 2:00 p.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 5, 2016.
Intertek USA, Inc., was accredited and approved as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 5, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2019.
Christopher J. Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 16025 Jacintoport Blvd., Suite B, Houston, TX 77015, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of February 8, 2017.
The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on February 8, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2020.
Christopher J. Mocella, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 481A East Shore Parkway, New Haven, CT 06512, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under Section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2017, is 2
Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the
Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.
The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of Section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2017, is 2
For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:
Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended Section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under Section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).
Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.
The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2017, is 2
The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs is
Submit comments on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments on the information collection to Mr. Jack Stevens, Division Chief, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., MS-20 SIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 208-4564; email:
Mr. Jack Stevens, (202) 208-6764.
The Division of Economic Development (DED), within the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED), established the Native American Business Development Institute (NABDI) to provide technical assistance funding to federally recognized American Indian Tribes seeking to retain universities and colleges, private consulting firms, non-academic/non-profit entities, or others to prepare studies of economic development opportunities or plans. These studies and plans will empower American Indian Tribes and Tribal businesses to make informed decisions regarding their economic futures. Studies may concern the viability of an economic development project or business or the practicality of a technology a Tribe may choose to pursue. The DED will specifically exclude from consideration proposals for research and development projects, requests for funding of salaries for Tribal government personnel, funding to pay legal fees, and requests for funding for the purchase or lease of structures, machinery, hardware or other capital items. Plans may encompass future periods of five years or more and include one or more economic development factors including but not limited to land and retail use, industrial development, tourism, energy, resource development and transportation.
This is an annual program whose primary objective is to create jobs and foster economic activity within Tribal communities. The DED will administer the program within IEED; and studies and plans as described herein will be sole discretionary projects DED will consider or fund absent a competitive bidding process. When funding is available, DED will solicit proposals for studies and plans. To receive these funds, Tribes may use the contracting mechanism established by Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination Act or may obtain adjustments to their funding from the Office of Self-Governance. See 25 U.S.C. 450
Interested applicants must submit a Tribal resolution requesting funding, a statement of work describing the project for which the study is requested or the scope of the plan envisioned, the identity of the academic institution or other entity the applicant wishes to retain (if known) and a budget indicating the funding amount requested and how it will be spent. The DED expressly retains the authority to reduce or otherwise modify proposed budgets and funding amounts.
Applications for funding will be juried and evaluated on the basis of a proposed project's potential to generate jobs and economic activity on the reservation.
The IEED requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
• A duly-enacted, signed resolution of the governing body of the Tribe;
• A proposal describing the planned activities and deliverables products; and
• The identity (if known) of the academic institution, private consultant, non-profit/non-academic entity, or other entity the Tribe has chosen to perform the study or prepare the plan; and
• A detailed budget estimate, including contracted personnel costs, travel estimates, data collection and analysis costs, and other expenses, through DED reserves authority to reduce or otherwise modify this budget.
The DED requires this information to ensure that it provides funding only to those projects that meet the economic development and job creation goals for which NABDI was established. Applications will be evaluated on the basis of the proposed project's potential to generate jobs and economic activity on the reservation. Upon completion of the funded project, a Tribe must then submit a final report summarizing events, accomplishments, problems and/or results in executing the project.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming compact between the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota.
This notice takes effect July 26, 2017.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
An extension to an existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact to January 28, 2018. This publishes notice of the new expiration date of the compact.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
A person or party who wishes to protest this survey must file a written notice by August 25, 2017.
Written notices protesting this survey must be sent to the Utah State Director, Bureau of Land Management, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345.
Daniel W. Webb, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Bureau of Land Management, Branch of Geographic Sciences, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345, telephone 801-539-4135, or
This survey was executed at the request of the Monument Manager for the BLM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The lands surveyed are:
A copy of the plat and related field notes will be placed in the open files. They will be available for public review in the BLM Utah State Office as a matter of information.
A person or party who wishes to protest against the above survey must file a written notice within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Utah State Director, Bureau of Land Management, at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collections (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on these ICs, we must receive them by September 25, 2017.
Send your comments on the IC to Tim Goddard, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-242, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or
To request additional information about these ICs, contact Kristine Brunsman, Project Coordinator, State, Tribal, Local, Plans and Grants, Cultural Resources Partnerships and Science, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., Mailstop 7360, Washington, DC 20240; via fax at (202) 371-1961, or via email to
This set of information collections has an impact on State, Tribal, and local governments that wish to participate formally with the National Park Service (NPS) in the National Historic Preservation Partnership (NHPP)
This request includes information collections related to HPF grants to States and to THPOs. Section 101(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (54 U.S.C. 302301), specifies the role of States in the NHPP Program. Section 101(c), section 103(c), and section 301 of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302502, 54 U.S.C. 302902, and 54 U.S.C. 300301), specify the role of local governments in the NHPP program. Section 101(d) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302701) specifies the role of tribes in the NHPP Program. Section 108 of the Act (54 U.S.C. 303101) created the HPF to support activities that carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 101(e)(1) of the Act (54 U.S.C. 302902) directs the Secretary of the Interior through the NPS to “administer a program of matching grants to the States for the purposes of carrying out” the Act. Similarly, sections 101(d) and 101(e) of the Act direct the NPS to administer a program of grants to THPOs for carrying out their responsibilities under the Act. Section 101(e) of the Act also authorizes Tribal Heritage Grants for which THPOs and, as Section 301 defines the terms, other tribes, native Alaskan corporations, and native Hawaiian groups are eligible to apply. Section 101j of the Act (54 U.S.C. 303903) directs NPS to provide historic preservation-related education and training.
Each year Congress directs the NPS to use part of the annual appropriation from the HPF for the State grant program and the Tribal grant programs. The purpose of both the HPF State grant program and the HPF THPO grant program is to assist States and Tribes in carrying out their statutory role in the national historic preservation program. HPF grants to States and THPOs are program grants;
The NPS developed the information collections associated with 36 CFR part 61 in consultation with State, Tribal, and local government partners. The obligation to respond is required to provide information to evaluate whether or not State, Tribal, and local governments meet minimum standards and requirements for participation in the National Historic Preservation Program; and to meet program specific requirements as well as government-wide requirements for Federal grant programs.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authorities for this action are the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the [
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until August 25, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Larry Penninger, Jr., Chief, National Tracing Center Division, either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before September 25, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 9, 2017, Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development of analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before August 25, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before August 25, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on February 15, 2017, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland 20852 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in bulk powder form from foreign sources for the manufacture of analytical reference standards for sale to their customers.
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before September 25, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 30, 2017, AMRI Rensselaer, Inc., 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development and for distribution to its customers.
In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (THC), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetics. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of registration.
Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as bulk manufacturers of various classes of controlled substances.
The companies listed below applied to be registered as manufacturers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted for these notices.
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of these registrants to manufacture the applicable basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each of the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the DEA has granted a
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before September 25, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 2, 2016, Organic Consultants, Inc., 90 North Polk Street, Suite 200, Eugene, Oregon 97402 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer for methadone intermediate (9254), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before August 25, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before August 25, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 27, 2016, AMRI Rensselaer, Inc., 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144 applied to be registered as an importer of poppy straw concentrate (9670), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to manufacture bulk controlled substance for distribution to its customers.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of Renewal of the Workforce Information Advisory Council.
The Department of Labor (Department) announces the renewal of the Workforce Information Advisory Council (WIAC) charter.
Steve Rietzke, Division of National Programs, Tools, and Technical Assistance, Office of Workforce Investment, Rm. C-4510, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20212-0001; (202) 693-3912; or use email address for the WIAC,
Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49
The statute, as amended, requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, to formally consult at least twice annually with the WIAC to address: (1) Evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system established by the Wagner-
By law, the Secretary must “solicit, review, and evaluate” recommendations from the WIAC, and respond to the recommendations in writing to the WIAC. The WIAC must make written recommendations to the Secretary on the evaluation and improvement of the workforce and labor market information system, including recommendations for the 2-year plan. The 2-year plan, in turn, must describe WIAC recommendations and the extent to which the plan incorporates them.
The Department anticipates that the WIAC will accomplish its objectives by, for example: (1) Studying workforce and labor market information issues; (2) seeking and sharing information on innovative approaches, new technologies, and data to inform employment, skills training, and workforce and economic development decision making and policy; and (3) advising the Secretary on how the workforce and labor market information system can best support workforce development, planning, and program development.
The Wagner-Peyser Act at section 15(d)(2)(B), requires the WIAC to have 14 representative members, appointed by the Secretary, consisting of:
(i) Four members who are representatives of lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities, or State agencies described in Wagner-Peyser Act Section 4 (agency designated or authorized by Governor to cooperate with the Secretary), who have been nominated by such agencies or by a national organization that represents such agencies;
(ii) Four members who are representatives of the State workforce and labor market information directors affiliated with the State agencies responsible for the management and oversight of the workforce and labor market information system as described in Wagner-Peyser Act Section 15(e)(2), who have been nominated by the directors;
(iii) One member who is a representative of providers of training services under WIOA section 122 (Identification of Eligible Providers of Training Services);
(iv) One member who is a representative of economic development entities;
(v) One member who is a representative of businesses, who has been nominated by national business organizations or trade associations;
(vi) One member who is a representative of labor organizations, who has been nominated by a national labor federation;
(vii) One member who is a representative of local workforce development boards, who has been nominated by a national organization representing such boards; and
(viii) One member who is a representative of research entities that use workforce and labor market information.
The Secretary must ensure that the membership of the WIAC is geographically diverse, and that no two members appointed under clauses (i), (ii), and (vii), above, represent the same State. Each member will be appointed for a term of three years, except that the initial terms for members may be one, two, or three years in order to establish a rotation. The Secretary will not appoint a member for any more than two consecutive terms. Any member whom the Secretary appoints to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the predecessor's term will be appointed only for the remainder of that term. Members of the WIAC will serve on a voluntary and generally uncompensated basis, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend WIAC meetings, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel regulations.
Pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 49
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Manlifts Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 25, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064 (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Manlifts Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.68(e). More specifically the Standard requires an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to create and maintain a certification record of each manlift inspection. The Standard also provides that the employer must inspect each manlift at least once every 30 days and to check limit switches weekly. OSH Act sections 2 and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Certification and Qualification to Examine, Test, Operate Hoists and Perform Other Duties.
All comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines.
Under section 103(a), authorized representatives of the Secretary or Secretary of Health and Human Services must make frequent inspections and investigations in coal or other mines each year for the purpose of, among other things, gathering information with respect to mandatory health or safety standards.
Under 30 CFR 75.159 and 77.106 coal mine operators are required to maintain a list of persons who are certified and/or qualified to perform duties under Parts 75 and 77, such as conduct examinations for hazardous conditions, conduct tests for methane and oxygen
Sections 75.100 and 77.100 pertain to the certification of certain persons to perform specific examinations and tests. Sections 75.155 and 77.105 outline the requirements necessary to be qualified as a hoisting engineer or hoistman. Also, under Sections 75.160, 75.161, 77.107 and 77.107-1, the mine operator must have an approved training plan developed to train and retrain the qualified and certified persons to effectively perform their tasks.
These standards recognize State certification and qualification programs. However, where State programs are not available, MSHA may certify and qualify persons.
Under this program MSHA will continue to qualify or certify individuals as long as these individuals meet the requirements for certification or qualification, fulfill any applicable retraining requirements, and remain employed at the same mine or by the same independent contractor.
Applications for Secretarial qualification or certification are submitted to the MSHA Qualification and Certification Unit in Denver, Colorado. MSHA Form 5000-41, Safety & Health Activity Certification or Hoisting Engineer Qualification Request provides the coal mining industry with a standardized reporting format that expedites the certification and qualification process while ensuring compliance with the regulations. MSHA uses the form's information to determine if applicants satisfy the requirements to obtain the certification or qualification sought. Persons must meet certain minimum experience requirements depending on the type of certification or qualification.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Certification and Qualification to Examine, Test, Operate Hoists and Perform Other Duties. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Certification and Qualification to Examine, Test, Operate Hoists and Perform Other Duties. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before August 25, 2017.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) Texas Westmoreland Coal Company realizes that some stages of assembly/disassembly of draglines require special consideration when the boom/mast is raised/lowered into position. The boom is raised/lowered utilizing the on board motor generator sets. This is critical because, during the process, power to the machine must not be interrupted. Power loss conditions may result in the boom becoming uncontrolled, falling, and resulting in possible injuries to workers. To address this condition, the following guidelines will be implemented to help prevent loss of power to the machine. This procedure only addresses raising/lowering the boom on draglines utilizing the machines electrical onboard motor generator sets. It does not replace other mechanical precautions or the requirements of 30 CFR 77.803 that are necessary to safely secure booms/masts during construction or maintenance procedures.
(2) The following is a procedure for “boom raising” or “boom lowering” at Texas Westmoreland Coal Company's Jewett Mine. During this period of construction/maintenance, the machine will not be performing mining operations. This procedure would also be applicable in instances of disassembly or maj9or maintenance which requires the boom to be raised/lowered. The following guidelines will be followed to minimize the potential for electrical power loss during this critical boom procedure.
(3) The procedure would most likely only be used during disassembly or major maintenance. Major maintenance requiring the raising/lowering of the boom/mast would only be performed on an as-needed basis, which could span long periods of time. Therefore, training and review of the procedure would only be conducted prior to this need. At such time, all persons involved in the procedure would be trained or retrained.
(a) Texas Westmoreland Coal Company employees, its contractors, and affected persons will be trained on the requirements of the procedure at the Jewett Mine.
(b) The procedure will be coordinated by Texas Westmoreland Coal Company's Production Superintendent and, if present, the contractor's representative will assist. Two (2) MSHA qualified electricians will be present at all times during the procedure.
(c) The procedure will limit the number of persons required on board the machine. An MSHA-qualified electrician, dragline operator, and the dragline oiler will be permitted on the machine. Texas Westmoreland Coal Company's production Superintendent and contractor's representative may either be on board or at a location on the ground to assist in the coordination.
(d) The affected area under the boom will be secured to prevent persons from entering and/or contacting the frame of the machine during the boom raising/lowering. The area will be secured and only those persons identified in paragraph 3 above will be permitted inside the secured area. At no time will anyone be permitted under the boom or close to the boom.
(e) Communication between the dragline operator, the MSHA-qualified electrician at the dragline, the MSHA-qualified electrician at the substation, Texas Westmoreland Coal Company's Production Superintendent, and the contractor's representative, if present, will be by a dedicated channel on the company's two-way radio.
(f) An MSHA-qualified electrician will complete an examination of all electrical components that will be energized. The examination will be done within two (2) hours prior to the boom raising/lowering process. A record of this examination will be made and available to interested parties. The machine will be de-energized to perform this examination.
(g) After the examination has been completed, the electrical components necessary to complete the boom raising/lowering process will be energized to ensure they are operating properly as determined by an MSHA-qualified electrician. When the above is completed, the machine will be de-energized and locked out.
(h) The ground fault and ground check circuits will be disabled provided:
1. The internal ground conductor of the trailing cable has been tested and is continuous from the frame of the dragline to the grounding resistor located at the substation. Utilizing the ground check circuit and disconnecting the pilot circuit at the machine frame and verifying the circuit breaker cannot be closed will be an acceptable test. Resistance measurements can also be used to test the ground conductor. The grounding resistor will be tested to assure it is properly connected, is not open, or is not shorted.
2. Normal short circuit protection will be provided at all times. The over current relay setting may be increased up to 100 percent above its normal setting.
(i) During the boom raising/lowering procedure, an MSHA-qualified electrician will be positioned at the substation to monitor the grounding circuit. The MSHA- qualified electrician at the substation will at all times maintain communications with an MSHA qualified electrician at the dragline. If a grounded phase condition or an open ground wire should occur during the process, the MSHA-qualified electrician at the substation will notify the MSHA-qualified electrician at the dragline. All persons on board the machine must be aware of the condition and must remain on board the machine. The boom must be lowered to the ground or controlled and the electrical circuit de-energized, locked and tagged out. The circuit must remain de-energized until the condition is corrected. The ground fault and ground check circuits will be reinstalled prior
(j) During this construction/maintenance procedure, persons cannot get on/off the dragline while the ground fault ground check circuits are disabled unless the circuit to the dragline is de-energized, locked and tagged out as verified by the MSHA-qualified electrician at the substation.
(k) After the boom raising/lowering is completed, the MSHA-qualified electrician at the substation will restore all the protective devices to their normal state. When this has been completed, the MSHA-qualified electrician at the substation will notify the MSHA-qualified electrician at the dragline that all circuits are in their normal state. At this time, normal work procedures can begin.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will always guarantee the miners affected no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) The Fort Calhoun Underground Mine will soon be developing two parallel decline tunnels to access an identified limestone reserve near Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. The decline tunnels will each be approximately 3,200 feet in length. The tunnels will be spaced roughly 155 feet horizontally between tunnel center lines. Two cross passages are planned to connect the two parallel tunnels during development. The Fort Calhoun Underground Mine will provide a portable prefabricated refuge chamber in each of the two decline tunnels for the purpose of barricading in the event of a mine emergency.
(2) The petitioner seeks modification of 30 CFR 57.11052(d) specifically with the standard's directive that refuge areas be provided with waterlines. The Fort Calhoun Underground Mine will provide waterlines to each of the two aforementioned refuge chambers; however, the installed waterlines will not support a potable water supply.
(3) In lieu of a plumbed potable water supply, potable water will be provided in each of the two refuge chambers in the form of commercially purchased bottled water in sealed bottles.
(4) The two planned portable refuge chambers to be used underground at the Fort Calhoun Underground Mine are each designed to sustain 20 miners for a period of 36 hours under battery backup power. These prefabricated refuge chambers will, at all times, be equipped with waterlines being directly fed from the surface. The waterline supplied to the refuge chamber will not be a source of potable water for miners taking refuge. The reliability of source water quality and volume being fed to the chambers is jeopardized considering water transmission line will be installed in a mining environment and inherently susceptible to mechanical damage or restriction in the event of a mine emergency. Sourcing of water from a surface reservoir to the refuge chambers is affected by climate conditions on the surface. Adversely cold surface temperatures could restrict or cut off the supply of water to the refuge chambers resulting in a diminution of safety. Add-in contaminants (industrial or bacteria) in piped-in water results in a diminution of safety for the miners.
(5) Potable water will be provided in each of the chambers in the form of commercially purchased bottled water in sealed bottles. Each of the two chambers will be provided with a minimum of 2.25 quarts of potable drinking water per person, per day. Considering that each of the chambers are designed to support 20 miners for a period of 36 hours, each chamber will be outfitted with a minimum of 67.5 quarts or 2160 ounces of commercially purchased potable drinking water in sealed bottles. Provisioned water will have a maximum shelf life of 2 years. The condition and quantity of stored water will be confirmed by monthly inspections. Written instructions for conservation of water will also be provided within the refuge chambers for reference.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below.
All comments on the petitions must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before August 25, 2017.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment to be used includes: Laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, insulation testers (meggers), voltage, current resistance, power testers, and electronic tachometers. Other testing and diagnostic equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(2) All nonpermissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examination results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(3) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut.
(4) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the nonpermissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and will be withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(5) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(6) Except for time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions coal production in the section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment to test and diagnose the equipment under “load”.
(7) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
(8) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the standard.
(1) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment to be used includes: Laptop computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, infrared temperature devices, insulation testers (meggers), voltage, current resistance, power testers, and electronic tachometers. Other testing and diagnostic equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Manager.
(2) All nonpermissible testing and diagnostic equipment used in return air outby the last open crosscut will be examined by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to use to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. These examination results will be recorded in the weekly examination book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.
(3) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in return air outby the last open crosscut.
(4) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above one percent. When one percent or more methane is detected while the nonpermissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be de-energized immediately and will be withdrawn from the return air outby the last open crosscut.
(5) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(7) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with the safe use procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
(8) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the standard.
(1) A minimum working barrier of 300 feet in diameter will be maintained around all SDD wells until approval to proceed with mining has been obtained from the District Manager (DM). The barrier would extend around all vertical and horizontal branches drilled in the coal seam. The barrier would also extend around all vertical and horizontal branches within overlying coal seams subject to caving or subsidence from the coal seam being mined when methane leakage through the subsidence zone is possible.
(2) The DM may choose to approve each branch intersection, each well, or a group of wells as applicable to the conditions. The DM may require a certified review of the proposed methods to prepare the SDD wells for intersection by a professional engineer in order to assess the applicability of the proposed system(s) to the mine-specific conditions.
a. The petitioner proposes to use the following procedures for preparing, plugging, and replugging SDD wells using mandatory computations and administrative procedures prior to plugging or replugging:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The surface location of all CBM wells in the active mining area and any projected mining area as specified in 30 CFR 75.372(b)(14);
(ii) Identifying information of CBM wells (
(iii) The date that gas production began from the well;
(iv) The coal seam intersection of all CBM wells;
(v) The horizontal extents in the coal seam of all CBM wells and branches;
(vi) The outline of the probable error of location of all CBM wells; and
(vii) The date of mine intersection and the distance between estimated and actual locations for all intersections of the CBM well and branches.
b. The petitioner proposes the following mandatory procedures for plugging or replugging SDD Wells:
(1)
Due to the large volume to be cemented and potential problems with cement setting prior to filling the entire SDD system, adequate sized pumping units with backup capacity must be used. Various additives such as retarders, lightweight extenders, viscosity modifiers, thixotropic modifiers, and fly ash may be used in the cement mix. The volume of cement pumped would exceed the estimated hole volume to ensure the complete filling of all voids.
The complete cementing program, including hold dewatering, cement, additives, pressures, pumping times and equipment must be specified in the mine ventilation plan. The material safety data sheets (MSDS) for all cements, additives and components and any personal protective equipment and techniques to protect workers from the potentially harmful effects of the cement and cement components would be included in the ventilation plan. Records of cement mixes, cement quantities, pump pressures, and flow rates and times would be retained for each hole plugged. SDD holes may be plugged with cement years in advance of mining. However, the DM will require suitable documentation of the cement plugging in order to approve mining within the minimum working barrier around CBM wells.
(2)
Water may dilute the gel mixture to the point where it will not set to the required strength. Water in the holes would be removed before injecting the gel mixture. Water removal can be accomplished by conventional bailing and then injecting compressed gas to squeeze the water that accumulated in low spots back into the formation. Gas pressurization would be continued until the hole is dry. Another potential problem with gels is that dissolved salts in the formation waters may interfere with the cross-linking reactions. Any proposed gel mixtures must be tested with actual formation waters.
Equipment to mix and pump gels would have adequate capacity to fill the hole before the gel sets. Backup units would be available in case something breaks while pumping. The volume of gel pumped would exceed the estimated hole volume to ensure the complete filling of all voids and allow for gel to infiltrate the joints in the coal seam surrounding the hole. Gel injection and setting pressures would be specified in the mine ventilation plan. To reduce the potential for an inundation of gel, the final level of gel would be close to the level of the coal seam and the remainder of the hole would remain open to the atmosphere until mining in the vicinity of the SDD system is completed. Packers may be used for isolate portions of the SDD system.
The complete polymer gel program, including advance testing of the gel with formation water, dewatering systems, gel specifications, gel quantities, gel placement, pressures, and pumping equipment must be specified in the mine ventilation plan. The MSDS for all gel components and any personal protective equipment and techniques to protect workers from potentially harmful effects of the gel and gel components would be included in the mine ventilation plan. A record of the calculated hold volume, gel quantities, gel formulation, pump pressures and flow rates and times would be retained for each hole that is treated with gel. Other gel chemistries other than organic polymers may be included in the mine ventilation plan with appropriate methods, parameters, and safety precautions.
(3)
A slug of water would be injected prior the bentonite gel in order to minimize moisture loss bridging near the well bore. The volume of gel pumped would exceed the estimated hole volume to ensure that the gel infiltrates the joints in the coal seam for several feet surrounding the hole. Due to the large gel volume and potential problems with premature thixotropic setting, adequately sized pumping units with back-up capacity are required. Additives to the gel may be required to modify viscosity, reduce filtrates, reduce surface tension, and promote sealing of the cracks and joints around the hole. To reduce the potential for an inundation of bentonite gel, the final level of gel would be approximately the elevation of the coal seam and the remainder of the hole would remain open to the atmosphere until mining in the vicinity of the SDD system is complete. If a water column is used to pressurize the gel, it must be bailed down to the coal seam elevation prior to intersection.
The complete bentonite gel program, including formation infiltration and permeability reduction data, hole pretreatment, gel specifications, and additives, gel quantities flow rates, injection pressures and infiltration times, must be specified in the ventilation plan. The ventilation plan should list the equipment used to prepare and pump the gel. The MSDS for all gel components and any personal protective equipment and techniques to protect workers from the potentially harmful effects of the gel and additives would be included in the ventilation plan. A record of the hole preparation, gel quantities, gel formulation, pump pressures, and flow rates and times would be retained for each hole that is treated with bentonite gel.
(4)
Packer may be used to reduce methane inflow into the coal mine after intersection. All packers on the downstream side of the hole must be equipped with a center pipe so that the inby methane pressure may be measured or so that water may be injected. Subsequent intersections would not take place if pressure in a packer-sealed hole is excessive. Alternatively, methane produced by the downstream hole may be piped to an in-mine degas system to safely transport the methane out of the mine or may be piped to the return air course for dilution. In-mine methane piping would be protected as stipulated in “Piping Methane in Underground Coal Mines, MSHA IR 1094, (1978). Protected methane diffusion zones may be established in return air courses if needed.
Detailed sketches and safety precautions for methane collection, piping and diffusion systems must be included in the mine ventilation plan (30 CFR 75.371(ee)).
Water infusion prior to intersecting the well will temporarily limit methane flow. Water infusion may also help control coal dust levels during mining. High water infusion pressures may be obtained prior to the initial intersection by the hydraulic head resulting from the hole depth or by pumping. Water infusion pressures for subsequent intersections are limited by leakage around in-mine packers and limitations of the mine water distribution system. If water is infused prior to the initial intersection, the water level in the hole must be lowered to the coal seam elevation before the intersection.
The complete pressure management strategy including negative pressure application, wellhead equipment, and use of packers, in-mine piping, methane dilution, and water infusion must be specified in the mine ventilation plan. Procedures for controlling methane in the downstream hole must be specified in the mine ventilation plan. The remaining methane content and formation permeability would be addressed in the mine ventilation plan. The potential for the coal seam to cave into the well would be addressed in the mine ventilation plan. Dewatering methods would be included in the mine ventilation plan. A record of the negative pressures applied to the system, methane liberation, use of packers and any water infusion pressures and application time would be retained for each intersection.
(5)
c. The petitioner proposes to use the following mandatory procedures after approval has been granted by the DM to mine within the minimum working barrier around the well or branch of the well:
(1) The mine operator, the DM, a representative of the miners, or the appropriate State agency may request a conference prior to any intersection or after any intersection to discuss issues or concerns. Upon receipt of any request, the DM will schedule a conference. The party requesting the conference will notify all other parties listed above within a reasonable time prior to the conference to provide opportunity for participation.
(2) The mine operator must notify the DM, the State agency, and the representative of the miners at least 48 hours prior the intended intersection of any CBM well.
(3) The initial intersection of a well or branch of a well typically has higher risk than subsequent intersections. The initial intersection typically indicates if the well preparation is sufficient to prevent the inundation of methane. For the initial intersection of a well or branch the following procedures are mandatory:
(a) When mining advances within the minimum barrier distance of the well or branches of the well, the entries that will intersect the well or branches must be posted with a readily visible marking. For longwalls, both the head and tailgate entries must be so marked. Marks must be advanced to within 100 feet of the working face as mining progresses. Marks will be removed after well or branches are intersected in each entry or after mining has exited the minimum barrier distance of the well.
(b) Entries that will intersect vertical segments of a well will be marked with drivage sights in the last open crosscut when mining is within 100 feet of the well. When a vertical segment of a well will be intersected by a longwall, drivage sights will be installed on 10-foot centers starting 50 feet in advance of the anticipated intersection. Drivage sights will be installed in both the headgate and tailgate entries of the longwall.
(c) Firefighting equipment, including fire extinguishers, rock dust, and sufficient fire hose to reach the working face area of the mine-through (when either the conventional or continuous mining method is used), will be available and operable during each well mine-through. A fire hose will be located in the last open crosscut of the entry or room. A water line to the belt conveyor tailpiece will be maintained along with a sufficient amount of fire hose to reach the farthest point of penetration on the section. When the longwall mining method is used, a hose to the longwall water supply is sufficient. All fire hoses will be connected and ready for use, but do not have to be charged with water during the cut-through.
(d) The operator will keep available at the working section a sufficient supply of roof support and ventilation materials. In addition, emergency plugs, packers, and setting tools to seal both sides of the well or branch will be available in the immediate area of the cut-through.
(e) When mining advances within the minimum working barrier distance from the well or branch of the well, the operator will service all equipment and check for permissibility at least once daily. Daily permissibility examinations must continue until the well or branch is intersected or until mining exits the minimum working barrier around the well or branch.
(f) When mining advances within the minimum working barrier distance from the well or branch of the well, the operator will calibrate the methane monitor(s) on the longwall, continuous mining machine and loading machine at least once daily. Daily methane monitor calibration must continue until the well or branch is intersected or until mining exits the minimum working barrier around the well or branch.
(g) When mining is in progress, the operator will perform tests for methane with a handheld methane detector at least every 10 minutes from the time mining with the continuous mining machine or longwall face is within the minimum working barrier around the well or branch. During the cutting
(h) When using continuous or conventional mining methods, the working place will be free from accumulations of coal dust and coal spillages, and rock dust will be placed on the roof, rib, and floor to within 20 feet of the face when mining through the well or branch. On longwall sections, rock dust will be applied on the roof, rib, and floor up to both the headgate and tailgate pillared area.
(i) Immediately after the well or branch is intersected, the operator will de-energize all equipment, and the certified person will thoroughly examine and determine the working place safe before mining is resumed.
(j) After a well or well branch has been intersected and the working place determined safe, mining will continue inby the well a sufficient distance to permit adequate ventilation around the area of the well or branch.
(k) No open flame will be permitted in the area until adequate ventilation has been established around the wellbore or branch. Any casing, tubing or stuck tools will be removed using the methods approved in the mine ventilation plan.
(l) No person will be permitted in the working place of the mine-through operation during active mining except those persons actually engaged in the mining operation, including mine management, representatives of miners, personnel from MSHA, and personnel from the appropriate State agency.
(m) The mine operator will warn all personnel in the mine of the planned intersection of the well or branch prior to their going underground if the planned intersection is to occur during their shift. This warning will be repeated for all shifts until the well or branch has been intersected.
(n) A certified official will directly supervise the mine-through operation and only the certified official in charge will issue instructions concerning the mine-through operation.
(o) All miners will be in known locations and will stay in communication with the responsible person, in accordance with the site specific approved emergency response plan when active mining occurs within the minimum working barrier of the well or branch.
(p) The responsible person required in 30 CFR 75.1501 is responsible for well intersection emergencies. The well intersection procedures must be reviewed by the responsible person prior to any planned intersection.
(q) A copy of the approved petition will be maintained at the mine and be available to the miners.
(r) The provisions of the approved petition do not impair the authority of representative of MSHA to interrupt or halt the mine-through operation and to issue a withdrawal order when its deemed necessary for the safety of the miners. MSHA may order an interruption or cessation of the mine-through operation and/or withdrawal of personnel by issuing either a verbal or a written order to that effect to a representative of the operator, and will include the basis for the order. Operations in the affected area of the mine may not resume until a representative of MSHA permits resumption of mine-through operations. The miner operator and miners will comply with verbal or written MSHA orders immediately. All verbal orders will be committed to in writing within a reasonable time as conditions permit.
(s) For subsequent intersections of branches of a well, appropriate procedures to protect the miners will be specified in the mine ventilation plan.
d. The petitioner proposes to use the following mandatory procedures after SDD intersections:
(1) All intersections with SDD wells and branches that are in intake air courses will be examined as part of the pre-shift examinations required in 30 CFR 75.360.
(2) All other intersections with SDD wells and branches will be examined as part of the weekly examinations required in 30 CFR 75.364.
Within 30 days after this petition becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved Part 48 training plan to the DM. These proposed revisions will include initial and refresher training regarding compliance with the terms and conditions stated in the petition. The mine operator will provide all miners involved in the mine-through of a well or branch with training regarding the requirements of this petition prior to mining within the minimum working barrier of the next well or branch intended to be mined through.
Within 30 days after this petition becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction required in 30 CFR 75.1502. The mine operator will revise the program to include the hazards and evacuation procedures to be used for well intersections. All underground miners will be trained in the revised program within 30 days of the approval of the revised mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program of instruction.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will always guarantee the miners no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the standard.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Stakeholder workshop.
The International Space Station (ISS) Stakeholder Workshop is intended to engage ISS stakeholders in gathering information that may be used in the development of NASA's future ISS planning activities. Specifically, the workshop targets the commercial space sector, researchers, technology developers, transportation and habitation providers, other government agencies, and other interested parties, providing a forum for dialogue with NASA on topics relevant to ISS future planning. Topics for discussion include the low Earth orbit (LEO) commercial, research, and development market; access to space; the value of permanent human habitation in LEO; and structure and planning for public/private partnerships in LEO.
Wednesday, August 9, 2017, 8:30am-6:00pm, Local Time.
Marriott Marquis Washington DC, 901 Massachusetts Ave NW., Washington, DC 20001. Please see the workshop Web site at:
Jacob Keaton, 202-358-1507,
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Attendees are requested to register at:
Weeks of July 24, 31, August 7, 14, 21, 28, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 24, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 31, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 7, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 14, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 21, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 28, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Immediately Effective Order to Fansteel, Inc. and FMRI (a subsidiary of Reorganized Fansteel). The Order modifies License No. SMB-911 to include “Fansteel, Inc.” as a co-Licensee with “FMRI (a subsidiary of Fansteel)” for the complex decommissioning site in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The Order also requires amendment of the Decommissioning Plan to reflect “Fansteel” as a co-licensee and requires Fansteel and FMRI to take any and all actions necessary at the Muskogee site to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. The NRC issued the Order in response to the imminent risk that FMRI will abandon the Muskogee site.
The Order was issued on July 14, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0165 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:
•
•
•
Greg Chapman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8718; email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
FMRI, a subsidiary of Reorganized Fansteel, Inc. (“Fansteel”) (“Licensee”) is the current holder of Byproduct/Source/Special Nuclear Material License No. SMB-911 (“License”) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) pursuant to 10 CFR part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material.” The License authorizes possession of source material consisting of up to 400 tons of natural uranium and thorium in any form at the Muskogee, Oklahoma site, where Fansteel operated a rare metal extraction facility until December 1989. The License further authorizes activities related to decommissioning and characterization of contaminated facilities, equipment, and land, and maintenance of control over licensed materials in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained in the application submitted by letter dated January 14, 2003 (ML030280438), and supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2003 (ML031340606), July 24, 2003 (ML032100533, re: Decommissioning Plan), July 24, 2003 (ML032100585, re: license transfer); and by letter dated July 6, 2006 (ML061930111), and supplemented by letters dated August 31, 2006 (ML070740112) and May 24, 2007 (ML071560249). The License, originally issued in 1967, expired on September 30, 2002 although it has continued, in effect, in accordance with 10 CFR 40.42(c).
The Muskogee site currently contains contaminated material in the form of uranium, thorium, and their decay-chain progeny. This contamination is located in process equipment and buildings, soil, sludge, and groundwater. As the holder of License No. SMB-911, FMRI is responsible for decontaminating the Muskogee site by conducting characterization, remediation, and other decommissioning activities in accordance with both the NRC-approved 2003 Decommissioning Plan (“Decommissioning Plan”) and supplemental correspondence with the NRC staff relating to the Decommissioning Plan. Fansteel is the current record owner of approximately 80 acres of the Muskogee site, including the contaminated portion of the site. Currently, the only Director and the President, Secretary, and Treasurer of FMRI is Mr. Robert Compernolle, the Vice President and Corporate Controller of Fansteel.
In a letter dated July 6, 2017 from Mr. Robert Compernolle (FMRI) to the NRC (“Compernolle Letter”) (ML17193A341), FMRI stated that it has not received compliance funding
Reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security are the NRC's fundamental regulatory mandates under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Compliance with NRC requirements plays a critical role in giving the NRC confidence that licensees are maintaining an adequate level of public health and safety and common defense and security. In situations where licensees cannot demonstrate adequate compliance with NRC regulations, the Commission may act in accordance with its statutory authority under Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to require licensees to take action in order to protect health and safety and common defense and security. In addition, the Commission may institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or to take such action as may be proper by serving on the licensee or other person subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission an immediately effective order pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(a).
FMRI's sampling data indicates that the Muskogee site has groundwater contamination that exceeds the effluent concentration limits in Appendix B of 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” The 2016 sampling data showed concentrations in some wells being almost double the Appendix B limits, which are based on a 50 mrem/y estimated dose. This contamination is currently collected, treated, and monitored by a water treatment system operated by FMRI staff. The water is then released to the Arkansas River in accordance with Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) Permit No. OK0001643. As indicated by the Compernolle Letter, if the site is abandoned, any contaminated groundwater, or surface water runoff, will flow unimpeded, untreated, and unmonitored into the Arkansas River, which is immediately adjacent to the site. The nearest surface water intake from the river is approximately 15 miles downstream of the site.
The site also contains several process impoundments (ponds), which contain treated water and radiologically contaminated calcium fluoride (CaF
Fansteel was the original holder of the License. In January 2002, Fansteel filed a petition for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to Chapter 11 of the
Subsequent to the NRC's approval of the license transfer and the effective date of the Reorganization Plan, Fansteel has exercised
Fansteel has also failed to fulfill the commitments it made in support of the license transfer. As previously noted, Fansteel failed to deposit all insurance proceeds into the Decommissioning Trust, failed to provide minimum required compliance funding to FMRI, and siphoned compliance funding from FMRI. In 2006 and again in 2007, FMRI applied for withdrawal of funds from the Decommissioning Trust and certified that all funds due to FMRI from Fansteel had been paid when in fact they had not. FMRI was required to replenish the Decommissioning Trust within 30 days of making such withdrawals, yet FMRI did not replenish the Decommissioning Trust. In 2011, 2012, and 2013, Fansteel failed to provide minimum required compliance funding to FMRI, yet in annual reports submitted to the NRC in 2012, 2013, and 2014, FMRI inaccurately stated that such funding had been provided.
Fansteel's post-confirmation conduct has rendered FMRI incapable of compliance with NRC requirements, made FMRI unqualified to be sole Licensee, has put the Muskogee site at imminent risk of abandonment, and requires modification of the License. NRC staff has determined that the protection of public health and safety requires the issuance of this Order adding Fansteel as a co-Licensee of the License. Accordingly, the NRC hereby modifies SMB-911 via this Order to add Fansteel as a co-Licensee for SMB-911. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, “Orders,” the NRC finds that—in light of the likelihood of imminent site abandonment and the associated risks of further radiological contamination—the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be made immediately effective subject to the conditions provided below.
Fansteel again filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in September 2016, this time in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Iowa. In re Fansteel, Inc., No. 16-01823-ALS (Bankr. S.D. Iowa) (“Second Bankruptcy”). Nothing in this Order should be construed to seek collection of any claim or debt or monetary judgment. Rather, the actions required by the NRC under this Order are solely to enforce the NRC's police or regulatory power as permitted by the police or regulatory exception to the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(4), and are designed to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety.
The United States on behalf of the NRC has filed a motion in the Second Bankruptcy that is pending and which seeks continued compliance funding by Fansteel of FMRI. If granted and complied with, such compliance funding would allow Fansteel and FMRI to address the most immediate health and safety exigencies at the Muskogee site. This would likely alter the situation reported to the NRC in the Compernolle Letter as described above. However, according to the Compernolle Letter, FMRI's compliance activities will expire imminently. Therefore, the NRC has lost reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety with respect to the Muskogee site and finds issuance of this Order necessary.
The NRC recognizes that an order of the Second Bankruptcy Court, either on the United States' pending motion or another motion, may be necessary for Fansteel to use cash collateral to comply with this Order. The NRC further recognizes that additional modifications of this Order may be appropriate in light of any future orders of the Court.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 61, 62, 161, 184, 186, and 187 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 40, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE UPON ISSUANCE, AS FOLLOWS:
A. License No. SMB-911 is modified to add Fansteel, Inc. as a co-Licensee.
B. All relevant references to “FMRI” in License No. SMB-911 shall be changed to “Fansteel and FMRI.”
C. Fansteel and FMRI shall:
1. Take any and all actions necessary at the Muskogee site to: (1) Prevent the unauthorized release of radiological contamination into the Arkansas River; (2) collect and treat groundwater and surface water in accordance with all regulatory requirements; (3) secure the Muskogee site to prevent any unintended public exposure to radiation in excess of NRC regulatory requirements; and (4) take any additional actions to ensure the public health and safety. Fansteel's obligation under this subparagraph during the pendency of the Second Bankruptcy will not become effective if the Second Bankruptcy Court grants the United States' outstanding motion to comply with environmental health and safety laws and regulations on or before July 18, 2017. In such circumstance, during the pendency of the Second Bankruptcy, Fansteel's obligations will be governed by the Court's order.
2. Within 5 days of the issuance of this Order, submit a written report to the NRC describing all steps taken by Fansteel and FMRI to comply with this Order and how they have protected public health and safety.
3. Within 45 days of the issuance of this Order, submit to the NRC an amended Decommissioning Plan that reflects Fansteel as co-Licensee.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensees of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 30 days of issuance. In addition, the licensee and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 30 days of issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter “petition”), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's Public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's Public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the documents on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which their interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days from the date this Order is issued without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. AN ANSWER OR A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDER.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Dated this July 14, 2017.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 20, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service is revising Publication 52,
Michelle Lassiter 202-268-2914, or Kevin Gunther (202) 268-7208.
Pursuant to the
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published Addendum No. 3 to its Technical Instructions (TI) on January 15, 2016, and Addendum No. 4 on February 23, 2016 (
• The prohibition of lithium-ion (and lithium-ion polymer) batteries, shipped separately from the equipment they are intended to operate (categorized as identification number UN3480), on passenger aircraft.
• The restriction of UN3480 batteries and cells shipped via cargo aircraft to a maximum state of charge (SOC) of no more than 30 percent.
• The limitation of section II, UN3480 batteries and cells to a single package, when sent as a part of a consignment or overpack via cargo aircraft.
• The required use of an approved Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) label on all packages of UN3480 batteries and cells transported via cargo aircraft.
On September 7, 2016 (81 FR 61742), the Department of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking [Docket Number 2015-0273 (HM-215N)] titled
On February 22, 2017 (82 FR 11372), the Postal Service published a
• Prohibit UN3480 lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries in Postal Service air-eligible products.
• Revise its quantity limitations for UN3480 lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries in surface transportation to align with those for lithium metal batteries, changing from the previous 8 cells or 2 batteries to an aggregate mailpiece limit of 5 pounds (while retaining its previous battery capacity limitations of 20 Wh/cell and 100 Wh/battery).
The Postal Service also expresses its intent to revise Publication 52 to align with lithium battery regulations described in PHMSA's proposed rule of September 7, 2016. At that time, the Postal Service proceeded with its
• Eliminate the current text marking option for mailpieces required to bear, or optionally permitted to bear, lithium battery markings, and to limit markings to DOT-approved lithium battery handling labels only. Mailpieces restricted to surface transportation only, including those containing UN3090,
• Eliminate the requirement for accompanying documentation with mailings of lithium batteries.
• Add the new DOT class 9 hazard warning label for lithium batteries to Publication 52, Exhibit 325.1,
• Align with PHMSA regarding the requirement for outer packaging used to
• Provide a limited exception to permit the use of padded or poly bags when cells or batteries are afforded equivalent protection by the equipment in which they are contained, but to limit this exception only to batteries meeting the Postal Service definition of a button cell battery in section 349.11d of Publication 52.
• Take no action with regard to the requirement for lithium battery markings to appear on packages containing lithium cells or batteries, or lithium cells or batteries packed with, or contained in, equipment when there are more than two packages in the consignment, and continue to define a consignment in postal terms as a single parcel.
On March 30, 2017 (82 FR 15796), PHMSA published a final rule titled
The Postal Service received four responses to its notice of February 22, 2017, with all commenters addressing multiple issues. Commenters included two pilot associations, one hazardous materials transportation trade association, and the Congressional Delegation from the state of Alaska.
The pilot associations generally supported the Postal Service-proposed restrictions, and requested the Postal Service to implement additional controls on lithium batteries not contemplated in its proposed rulemaking. The trade association voiced concern with the Postal Service's intent to take no action towards alignment with PHMSA's revised definition and restrictions relating to consignments of more than a single package containing lithium batteries, and with the Postal Service-proposed implementation date. The Alaska Congressional Delegation expressed concern with regard to the impact of the proposed restrictions on those living in remote areas not serviced by cargo aircraft or ground transportation. The specific comments and Postal Service responses are as follows:
One pilot association related its support for the proposed revisions as written and suggests the following additional steps be taken by the Postal Service:
• The Postal Service should require compliance and harmonization with ICAO TI with regard to “postal pouches and containers” being required to bear markings and be accompanied by written notification—consistent with ICAO overpack requirements.
• The Postal Service should require compliance and harmonization with Universal Postal Union (UPU) Technical Standards for both international and domestic transportation.
• The Postal Service should require all lithium batteries to be shipped in non-flammable packaging.
• The Postal Service should permit airlines and other freight handlers to inspect postal packages to ensure the package can be safely shipped.
• This commenter states that when a carrier is concerned with risk mitigation, the Postal Service should not be exempt from regulations applying to commercial carriers. The commenter states that lithium battery shipments from USPS might be presented (grouped) in opaque containers that the carrier is prevented from opening. The commenter opines that such a limitation results in the carrier not being able to determine which shipments contain lithium batteries, limiting the carrier's ability to mitigate that risk. The commenter also notes that this limitation prevents the carrier from inspecting packages for potential damage to the package contents, possibly enhancing the carrier's risk.
The Postal Service is currently investigating options to require the preparation of sacks in accordance with the overpack requirements applicable to commercial shippers; this study is ongoing, however, and the Postal Service defers action on this matter at this time. The Postal Service intends to investigate the feasibility of modifying its operational processes to allow for the alignment with DOT overpack marking regulations, and to reexamine this issue at a later date. The Postal Service expects any such solution to include an enhanced process for the identification and segregation of mailpieces bearing lithium battery marks in Postal Service networks. As a result, the Postal Service is including an additional requirement for lithium battery handling marks to be placed on the address side of any and all mailpieces bearing these marks.
In response to the second suggestion regarding harmonization with UPU Technical Standards for both international and domestic (air) transportation, the Postal Service does not believe that the implementation of such restrictions would be a reasonable action at this time. Were the Postal Service to adopt UPU lithium battery restrictions, this would result in the elimination of all lithium batteries packaged “with equipment” in domestic air transportation, and would reduce the number of cells installed in equipment, from the current eight cells to the UPU limitation of four cells. In addition, this would eliminate the current exception for very small batteries installed in or packaged with equipment. The adoption of these limitations would result in the Postal Service being much more restrictive than commercial transportation providers and could create an undue hardship on mailers with few or no other options.
With regard to the suggested use of nonflammable packaging for lithium battery shipments, including a new requirement of this nature would fall outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Postal Service, however, is open to exploring the use of nonflammable packaging for lithium batteries at a future date. Factors to consider include whether such packaging is effective, affordable, and commercially available.
In response to the final two suggestions regarding airlines and other freight handlers inspecting postal packages and risk mitigation when postal packages are enclosed in sacks, the Postal Service believes any such measure is best addressed by its suppliers in their relations with supply management personnel. It must be kept in mind, however, that most packages are currently classified as sealed against inspection, and as such, any effort to conduct inspections of the contents of packages sealed as such would need to account for all applicable legal limitations. Moreover, it should be stressed that the Postal Service, unlike most commercial carriers, limits lithium batteries in its networks to only those meeting the conditions of the exception for smaller cells and batteries under 49 CFR 173.185(c).
Another pilot association related its support for the proposed prohibition of UN3480 batteries in Postal Service air transportation, stating that the Postal Service's proposed action is consistent with international standards and responsive to the expanding safety hazards posed by lithium batteries. In support of the prohibition, the
• Expresses its wish that the Postal Service eventually implement packaging standards capable of containing any thermal event within the package itself, and capable of protecting lithium batteries from external fire threats.
• States that the shipment of lithium-ion batteries in air transportation should continue with specified additional requirements to ensure their safe carriage, including:
• Active fire detection and suppression systems should be required on all commercial aircraft carrying lithium batteries.
• The elimination of packaging materials, such as polypropylene, that can fuel onboard fires. The Postal Service currently uses polypropylene mail totes (assumed to refer to flats and letter trays), which should not be used in air transportation.
• States that its concern with polypropylene in commercial air transportation is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and
• States that all operators engaged in the transport of lithium batteries should be required to carry such batteries within an aircraft compartment or container with an active fire suppression system capable of mitigating the risk of a lithium battery thermal event.
The Postal Service appreciates the commenter's support for the prohibition of UN3480 batteries in Postal Service air networks. With regard to the other issues raised by this commenter, some fall outside the scope of this rulemaking.
With regard to the first suggestion, regarding the eventual implementation of mailing standards requiring packaging capable of containing a thermal event within the package itself or providing protection from external fire, the Postal Service repeats that it is open to exploring the use of nonflammable packaging for lithium batteries at a future date. Factors to consider include whether such packaging is effective, affordable, and commercially available.
In reference to the suggestion regarding fire detection and suppression systems on aircraft carrying lithium batteries, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Postal Service has no immediate plans to require its contracted air carriers to use these systems as a condition for carrying mail. Of course, all carriers have the option to install these systems on their own at any time.
With regard to the remaining suggestions concerning the use of polypropylene mail handling units in air transportation, the Postal Service believes these recommendations to be outside the scope of its rulemaking, but will nonetheless weigh the merits of this option separately.
One commenter, a trade association, expresses its gratitude to the Postal Service for its continuing efforts to align Publication 52 with the DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). The commenter states that significant differences between the HMR and mailing standards create confusion with shippers who use the services of commercial transportation providers in addition to the mail. The commenter also states that alignment with the HMR is especially critical in the current environment where the Postal Service may cover only the first or last mile and a commercial carrier (regulated by the HMR) completes the remaining component of the transportation. In addition, the commenter expresses concern with the Postal Service proposal to define a
With regard to defining and restricting lithium battery consignments, the Postal Service has reconsidered its earlier proposal and has decided to add language to Publication 52 to define a lithium battery consignment within the context of shipments transported through the mail, and to add new restrictions for packages prepared within a single consignment. The details of these new mailing standards will be described later in this notice.
With regard to the transitional period for the use of marks and labels, the Postal Service intends to align its transitional period with that permitted in the HMR. As the Postal Service has done in the past, it will add language to Publication 52 that requires the use of a DOT-approved lithium battery handling mark. This will allow mailers to use previously approved marks and labels through the duration of the DOT transition period. At present, the Postal Service expects to allow mailers to continue to use previously approved lithium battery marks until December 31, 2018, the date announced by PHMSA in its final rule of March 30, 2017.
The Alaska Congressional Delegation requests the Postal Service to include a provision to authorize the continued transport of lithium batteries needed to support urgent patient needs on passenger aircraft to remote locations and “at a state of charge greater than 30%.” The Alaska Congressional Delegation also requests that consideration be given to the following points:
• First, the Alaska Congressional Delegation questions whether the Postal Service has assessed the impact of the proposed restriction of UN3480 batteries on rural communities not regularly serviced by cargo aircraft.
• Second, the Alaska Congressional Delegation asks whether the Postal Service will provide appropriate provisions for the shipment of UN3480 batteries used to power medical devices, as well as other lithium battery powered equipment (emergency beacons, generators and back-up power), to these remote locations in the “interim final rule” to avoid significant public health and safety impacts.
The Postal Service would be willing to entertain requests for exceptions from medical equipment suppliers specific to the mailing of UN3480 batteries in Postal Service products transported through the air, when these batteries are needed for the emergency support of critical medical devices, fall within the established capacity limits for lithium-ion batteries in Postal Service networks, and no other reasonable alternative exists. In response to any such request, supported by adequate justification, the Postal Service would provide written authorization to the medical equipment supplier to mail UN3480 batteries via USPS air-eligible products. To minimize the risk of conflicting with DOT provisions, the Postal Service plans to consult with the DOT prior to the approval of specific authorizations relating to UN3480 batteries in USPS air transportation.
With regard to other lithium battery-powered devices, such as emergency beacons, the Postal Service will provide an option for the mailing of UN3480 in air transportation. This option will be restricted to UN3480 batteries meeting the current USPS capacity limitation of 20 Wh/cell and 100 Wh/battery, and the current quantity limitations of eight cells or two batteries. Batteries mailed under this option must meet the conditions described in 349.222 of Publication 52, and 49 CFR 173.185(c), and will be restricted to intra-Alaska shipments (both mailed from, and delivered in Alaska).
Within the next several weeks, the Postal Service will revise Publication 52 to reflect the new mailing standards. With regard to lithium batteries, the Postal Service will:
• Generally prohibit UN3480 lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries in USPS air-eligible products.
• Revise its quantity limitations for UN3480 lithium-ion and lithium polymer batteries in surface transportation to align with those for lithium metal batteries, changing from the previous eight cells or two batteries to an aggregate mailpiece limit of 5 pounds.
• Accept and evaluate requests for exceptions to mail UN3480 batteries, used to support critical medical devices, via domestic air-eligible products. The batteries must be within current Postal Service capacity and quantity limitations, needed for the emergency support of critical medical devices, and no other reasonable alternative exists to affect their delivery within an acceptable time period. The Postal Service expects to defer revision to Publication 52 relating to these authorizations until it has determined the level of interest, and need for these exceptions. Prior to granting any authorizations, the Postal Service plans to consult with PHMSA to assure alignment with their approval processes for commercial carriers. Interested mailers may direct requests to the Manager, Product Classification (see Publication 52, section 214 for the complete address).
• Provide that UN3480 batteries, meeting the current Postal Service capacity limitations and quantity restrictions, may be mailed via air-eligible products, provided these mailings are both mailed and delivered within the state of Alaska.
• Eliminate the current text marking option for mailpieces required to bear, or optionally permitted to bear, lithium battery markings, and limit markings to DOT-approved lithium battery handling marks only.
• Require a separate text marking in addition to a DOT-approved lithium battery handling mark for mailpieces containing UN3480 and UN3090 batteries, restricted to surface transportation only.
• Permit the optional use of previously authorized lithium battery marks during PHMSA's transitional period for these marks.
• Eliminate the requirement for accompanying documentation with mailings of lithium batteries.
• Add the new DOT class 9 hazard warning label for lithium batteries to Publication 52, Exhibit 325.1,
• Require the outer packaging of mailpieces containing small lithium batteries to be rigid and of adequate size so the handling mark can be affixed to the address side without the mark being folded.
• Require lithium battery handling marks to be placed on the address side of all mailpieces bearing these marks.
• Permit the use of padded and poly bags as outer packaging for mailpieces containing button cell batteries properly installed in the equipment they are intended to operate, provided the batteries are afforded adequate protection by the equipment and the batteries meet the USPS definition of a button cell battery in 349.11d of Publication 52.
• Define a
• Require DOT-approved lithium battery markings on all mailpieces containing lithium cells or batteries contained in equipment when there are more than two mailpieces in a single consignment in domestic mail.
• Limit a single consignment to two mailpieces containing lithium batteries for international and APO/FPO/DPO mail.
These revisions will be published in the
The Postal Service will incorporate these revisions into the next online update of the Publication 52, which is available via Postal Explorer® at
On June 9, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, Inc. (“MRX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 9, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 30, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 24, 2017, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBOE Rule 6.18 contains the Exchange's rules relating to disaster recovery, including provisions intended to comply with Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“Regulation SCI”) concerning business continuity and disaster recovery plans.
First, the Exchange has proposed to adopt new Rule 6.18(b)(iv)(B), which would provide that, during the use of the back-up data center, if necessary for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the Exchange may: (1) Establish heightened quoting obligations for Designated BCP/DR Participants in a class in which the Designated BCP/DR Participant is already an appointed Market-Maker
Next, the Exchange has proposed to adopt new Rule 6.18(c), which would provide that, if the Exchange's primary and back-up data centers become inoperable or otherwise unavailable for use due to a significant systems failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstances, in the interests of maintaining fair and orderly markets or for the protection of investors, the Exchange would be able to operate in an exclusively floor-based environment on a limited basis for certain classes. Specifically, the Exchange could
The Exchange has also proposed to adopt new Rule 6.18(e), which would provide that, if there is a systems disruption or malfunction, security intrusion, systems compliance issue, or other unusual circumstances, the Exchange could temporarily deactivate certain systems or systems functionalities that are not essential to conducting business on the Exchange in accordance with the Rules or, if necessary, to maintain fair and orderly markets or to protect investors.
Finally, the Exchange has proposed to adopt new Rule 6.18(f), which would allow the Exchange to temporarily restrict a Trading Permit Holder's or associated person's access to the Hybrid Trading System or other electronic trading systems if the President (or senior-level designee)
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will provide the Exchange with additional tools to help ensure continuous operation of the Exchange and its core systems in the event of a significant systems failure or other unusual circumstances that threaten the Exchange's ability to operate its systems, maintain fair and orderly markets, and protect investors. The Commission notes that the authority provided by the proposed provisions is limited to circumstances where the Exchange is experiencing a disruption to its primary, or primary and back-up, electronic systems, or where the Exchange believes it is in imminent danger of experiencing such disruption. Further, the Commission notes that, according to the Exchange, in accordance with Rule 1001(a)(2)(v) of Regulation SCI, the Exchange maintains written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that its trading systems, including its primary and back-up data centers, have levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security adequate to maintain the Exchange's operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, including, but not limited to, business continuity and disaster recovery plans that are reasonably designed to achieve next two-hour resumption of its critical SCI systems, as defined in Rule 1000 of Regulation SCI.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's ability, during use of the back-up system, to invoke pre-determined heighted quoting obligations for Designated BCP/DR Participants that are Market-Makers (or Lead Market-Makers) in their appointed classes, or prevent them from dropping their appointments intraday, may help to ensure that such Designated BCP/DR Participants contribute to, and continue to help ensure, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in the event of a disaster or other serious circumstances causing the Exchange to operate out of
The Commission believes that the Exchange's ability to temporarily operate in an exclusively floor-based environment via open outcry in certain proprietary and exclusively-licensed products if the Exchange's primary and back-up data centers become inoperable or otherwise unavailable could help ensure that the market for these securities would continue to be available and functioning, which should protect investors by providing the ability to continue to trade these products until such time as the Exchange can resume normal trading. The Commission notes that this provision would be invoked only if the Exchange's primary and back-up data centers were both inoperable or otherwise unavailable due to a significant systems failure, disaster, or other unusual circumstances, and will only apply to the Exchange's exclusively-licensed and proprietary products, which only trade on CBOE and, in some instances, its affiliated exchanges. The Commission notes that the period of operation for this exclusively floor-based environment should be minimal based on Regulation SCI's requirements and the Exchange's two-hour resumption standard for its trading systems.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's ability to temporarily deactivate certain non-core systems or systems functionalities in the event of a systems disruption or malfunction, security intrusion, systems compliance issue, or other unusual circumstances could help prevent systems issues from spreading and potentially causing harm to investors or impeding the Exchange's ability to maintain fair and orderly markets. The Commission notes that this authority will only extend to those systems not essential to conducting business on the Exchange. The Commission further notes that the new rule provides that the Exchange will notify market participants of any such deactivation and any subsequent reactivation promptly.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's ability to temporarily restrict a Trading Permit Holder's or associated person's access to the Hybrid Trading System or other electronic trading system as provided in the rule is designed to allow the Exchange to prevent a Trading Permit Holder's systems issues from spreading across the Exchange's systems and potentially causing a more widespread problem implicating the Exchange's ability to maintain fair and orderly markets and thus potentially impacting other market participants. The Commission believes that this connectivity restriction is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and
Point Bridge Capital, LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company that will be registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series.
The application was filed on April 13, 2017, and amended on June 21, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 14, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: The Initial Adviser, 300 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1550, Fort Worth, Texas 76102; and the Trust, 615 East Michigan Street, 4th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6817, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond closely to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend qualification criteria under the Qualified Market Maker Program at Rule 7014. While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on July 1, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's fees at Rule 7014 to raise the combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity) criteria from the current requirement that a QMM have at least 3.5% to now require at least 3.7%, which a QMM must have to be eligible for a $0.0029 per share executed charge for orders in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq priced at $1 or more per share that access liquidity on the Nasdaq Market Center.
A QMM is a member that makes a significant contribution to market quality by providing liquidity at the national best bid and offer (“NBBO”) in a large number of stocks for a significant portion of the day.
Under Rule 7014(e), the Exchange charges a QMM $0.0030 per share executed for removing liquidity in Nasdaq-listed securities priced at $1 or more, and $0.00295 per share executed for removing liquidity in securities priced at $1 or more per share listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq, if the QMM's volume of liquidity added through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs during the month (as a percentage of Consolidated Volume) is not less than 0.80%. The Exchange assesses a charge of $0.0029 per share executed for removing liquidity in securities priced at $1 or more per share listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq if the QMM has a combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity) of at least 3.5%, and the QMM also meets the QMM Tier 2 qualification criteria. The QMM Tier 2 qualification criteria requires a QMM to execute shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
The Exchange is proposing to increase the combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity) requirement to at least 3.7%. This increase is reflective of the Exchange's desire to provide incentives to attract order flow to the Exchange in securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq in return for significant market-improving behavior. The modest increase in the qualification criteria will help ensure that QMMs are providing significant market-improving behavior.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the $0.0029 per share executed charge for removing liquidity in securities priced at $1 or more per share listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq will continue to be reasonable because the fee will remain unchanged. When the Exchange adopted the fee,
The Exchange believes that the increase to the combined Consolidated Volume qualification criteria is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reflective of the success that the lower charge tier has had in promoting beneficial market participation, as measured by combined Consolidated Volume (adding and removing liquidity). The Exchange believes that the level of combined Consolidated Volume may be increased without resulting in a significant reduction in the number of QMMs that will likely qualify for the lower transaction fee. Consequently, the beneficial market participation should remain the same, and possibly increase. Moreover, the Exchange is not limiting which QMMs may qualify for the reduced charge. As noted, the QMM Program is intended to encourage members to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in a large number of securities, thereby benefitting Nasdaq and other investors by committing capital to support the execution of orders. To receive the $0.0029 per share executed charge, a member must meet the Tier 2 criteria, which requires the QMM to execute shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent above 0.90% of Consolidated Volume during the month. In addition, the QMM must provide a certain level of combined Consolidated Volume, which accounts for both adding liquidity and removing liquidity. The Exchange is proposing to increase the required combined Consolidated Volume requirement to make the qualification criteria required to receive the incentive more meaningful to QMMs in terms of the beneficial market activity required to receive the reduced charge, which is reflective of the Exchange's belief that QMMs may continue to qualify for the reduced charge while also providing more beneficial market participation. The Exchange uses Consolidated Volume as a measure of the QMM's activity in comparison to that of the market as a whole. Thus, the
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, although the change to the QMM program may limit the benefits of the program in non-Nasdaq-listed securities to the extent QMMs that currently qualify for the $0.0029 per share executed charge are unable to meet the more stringent combined Consolidated Volume requirement, the incentive in question will remain in place and is itself reflective of the need for exchanges to offer significant financial incentives to attract order flow in return for meaningful market-improving behavior. The Exchange believes that the proposed qualification criteria will not negatively impact who will qualify for the $0.0029 per share executed charge but will rather have a positive impact on overall market quality as QMMs increase their participation in the market to qualify for the lower charge. If, however, the Exchange is incorrect and the changes proposed herein are unattractive to QMMs, it is likely that Nasdaq will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 804, entitled “Market Maker Quotations.”
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 amend GEMX Rule 804, entitled “Market Maker Quotations” to amend the current rule text at GEMX Rule 804(g)(1) and (2) to adopt a revised description of the manner in which GEMX removes market maker quotes when certain risk parameters have been triggered. The Exchange believes that the proposed new rule text will provide more detailed information to participants concerning the manner in which these risk features will remove quotes from the Order Book.
Today, GEMX Rule 804(g)(1) provides that a market maker must provide parameters by which the Exchange will automatically remove a market maker's quotations in all series of an options class. If a market maker does not provide parameters then the Exchange will apply default parameters announced to members. The Exchange will automatically remove a market maker's quotation when, during a time period established by the market maker, the market maker exceeds: (i) The specified number of total contracts in the class, (ii) the specified percentage of the total size of the market maker's quotes in the class, (iii) the specified absolute value of the net between contracts bought and contracts sold in the class, or (iv) the specified absolute value of the net between (a) calls purchased plus puts sold in the class, and (b) calls sold plus puts purchased in the class.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new rule text, which continues to require a market maker to provide parameters by which the Exchange will automatically remove a market maker's quotations in all series of an options class. If a market maker does not provide parameters then the Exchange will apply default parameters announced to members. This is not being amended, rather it is being expanded.
The proposed rule text in 804(g)(1) makes clear that market makers are required to utilize the Percentage, Volume, Delta and Vega Thresholds, each a Threshold, described in subsections (A)-(D) in the new rule text. These are the same risk parameters that are offered today by GEMX. The Exchange is seeking to identify each risk parameter specifically and describe the function of each parameter in Rule 804(g)(1)(A)-(D). For each feature, the Exchange's system (“System”) will continue to automatically remove quotes in all series of an options class when a certain threshold for any of the parameters has been exceeded.
The Exchange elaborates in the proposed rule that a market maker is required to specify a period of time not to exceed 30 seconds (“Specified Time Period”) during which the system will automatically remove a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an options class. The limitation of not to exceed 30 seconds is new for GEMX Members. In order to establish a reasonable limit to the allowable Specified Time Period, an GEMX Member will be limited to the setting their Specified Time period to no more than 30 seconds for these Thresholds. A Specified Time Period will commence for an options class every time an execution occurs in any series in such options class and will continue until the System removes quotes as described in proposed GEMX Rule 804(g)(2) or (3) or the Specified Time Period expires. This is the case today, and is not changing. The Specified Time Periods will be the same value described in subsections (A)-(D). Also, as is the case today, a Specified Time Period operates on a rolling basis among all series in an options class in that there may be Specified Time Periods occurring simultaneously for each Threshold and such Specified Time Periods may overlap. If a Market Maker does not provide parameters, the Exchange will apply default parameters, which default settings have been announced to Members.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(1)(A) describes in greater detail the operation of the Percentage Threshold. As is the case today, a Market Maker must provide a specified percentage of quote size (“Percentage Threshold”), of not less than 1%, by which the System will automatically remove a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an options class. The Exchange is adding more detail about the manner in which the System will calculate percentages and amending the current rule to change its operations. For each series in an options class, the System will determine (i) during a Specified Time Period and for each side in a given series, a percentage calculated by dividing the size of a Market Maker's quote size executed in a particular series (the numerator) by the Marker Maker's quote size available at the time of execution plus the total number of the Market Marker's quote size previously executed during the unexpired Specified Time Period (the denominator) (“Series Percentage”); and (ii) the sum of the Series Percentages in the options class (“Issue Percentage”) during a Specified Time Period. The System will track and calculate the net impact of positions in the same options issue; long call percentages are offset by short call percentages, and long put percentages are offset by short put percentages in the Issue Percentage. The Exchange also notes that in calculating the Percentage the System compares the number of contracts executed in that series relative to the size of the quote at the time of the execution plus the number of executed contracts that have occurred in the current time period. The legacy GEMX system calculated the Percentage risk parameter by comparing the number of contracts executed in that series relative to the size of the original quote only at the time of the execution. This difference is captured within the proposed rule text. The Exchange notes that with the migration from the GEMX legacy system to the INET system the manner in which the System offsets is not the same. The legacy GEMX system did not offset, in that long call percentages are not offset by short call percentages, and long put percentages are not offset by short put percentages. The migration to INET did however cause the System to track and calculate the net impact.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(1)(B) describes in greater detail the operation of the Volume Threshold. As is the case today, a market maker must provide a Volume Threshold by which the System will automatically remove a market maker's quotes in all series of an underlying security when the market maker executes a number of contracts which exceeds the designated number of contracts in all options series in an options class.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(1)(C) describes in greater detail the operation of the Delta Threshold. As is the case today, a market maker must provide a Delta Threshold by which the System will automatically remove a market maker's quotes in all series of an underlying security. For each class of options, the System will maintain a Delta counter, which tracks the absolute value of the difference between (i) purchased call contracts plus sold put contracts and (ii) sold call contracts plus purchased put contracts. If the Delta counter exceeds the Delta Threshold established by the Member, the System will automatically remove a market maker's quotes in all series of the options class.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(1)(D) describes in greater detail the operation of the Vega Threshold. As is the case today, a market maker must provide a Vega Threshold by which the System will automatically remove a Market Maker's quotes in all series of an options class. For each series of an options class, the System will maintain a Vega counter, which tracks the absolute value of purchased contracts minus sold contracts. If the Vega counter exceeds the Vega Threshold established by the Member, the System will automatically remove a Market Maker's quotes in all series of the options class.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(2) provides more detail about the System's current operation with respect to quote removal. The System will automatically remove quotes in all options in an underlying security when the Percentage Threshold, Volume Threshold, Delta Threshold or Vega Threshold has been exceeded. The System will send a Purge Notification Message to the Market Maker for all affected series when any of the above thresholds have been exceeded. The Percentage Threshold, Volume Threshold, Delta Threshold and Vega Threshold are considered independently of each other. Quotes will be automatically executed up to the Market Maker's size regardless of whether the execution of such quotes would cause the Market Maker to exceed the Percentage Threshold, Volume Threshold, Delta Threshold or Vega Threshold.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(3) provides more detail about the manner in which the System resets the counting of the various risk parameters. Notwithstanding the automatic removal of quotes described in the rule, if a market maker requests the System to remove quotes in all options series in an options class, the System will automatically reset all Thresholds.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(4) provides more detail about the process to re-initiate quoting. When the System removes quotes because the Percentage Threshold, Volume Threshold, Delta Threshold or Vega Threshold were exceeded, the market maker must send a re-entry indicator to re-enter the System.
Proposed Rule 804(g)(5) provides more detail about default parameters as mentioned above. If a market maker does not provide a parameter for each of the automated quotation removal Thresholds described in Rule 804(g)(1)(A-D) above, the Exchange will apply default parameters, which are announced to Members. This language exists today in the current text and is being memorialized herein.
Finally, proposed Rule 804(g)(6) describes the interaction between the four Thresholds and the market wide parameter. In addition to the Thresholds described in Rule 804(g)(1)(A)-(D) above, a market maker must provide a market wide parameter by which the Exchange will automatically remove a Market Maker's quotes in all classes when, during a time period established by the Market Maker, the total number of quote removal events specified in Rule 804(g)(1)(A)-(D) exceeds the market wide parameter provided to the Exchange by the market maker. As is the case today, Market Makers may request the Exchange to set the market wide parameter to apply to just GEMX or across GEMX and Nasdaq ISE.
Below are some illustrative examples of the Percentage and Volume risk parameters.
Example #1: Describes the Percentage risk parameter. Presume the following Order Book:
In this example, assume the Specified Time Period designated by the Market Maker #1 is 10 seconds and the Percentage Threshold is set to 100%. Assume at 12:00:00, Market Maker #1 executes 100 contracts of his offer size, 200 contracts, in the 110 Strike Calls. This represents an execution equaling 50% (100 contracts of the 200 contract quote size) of the 100% Percentage Threshold. Assume at 12:00:01, Market Maker #1 executes 50 additional contracts in the same 110 Strike Calls. This execution equates to an additional 25% ((50 contracts/(100 remaining quote size +100 contracts already executed within the Specified Time Period)) for a net 75% Series Percentage count toward the 100% Percentage Threshold. If at 12:00:03, Market Maker #1 executes the full size of his bid (50 contracts) in the 100 Strike Put, the System will automatically remove all of Market Maker #1's quotes in Underlying XYZ since the execution caused his 100% Percentage Threshold to be exceeded; the execution in the 100 Strike Put added 100% Series Percentage to his previously calculated Series Percentage of 75% totaling 175% Issue Percentage. No further quotes for Market Maker #1 in Underlying XYZ will be available until re-entry. The Specified Time Period will be reset for Market Maker #1 in options class XYZ and Market Maker #1 will need to send a re-entry indicator in order to re-enter quotes in options series for options class XYZ into the System.
Example #2 is another example of the Percentage Threshold. Presume the following Order Book:
In this example, assume Market Maker #1 has Percentage Threshold set at 100% with a Specified Time Period over 5 seconds. Assume at 12:00:00, Market Maker #1 is quoting the XYZ 20 strike calls at 1.00 (10)-1.20 (10). An incoming Order to buy 5 contracts for 1.20 trades against Market Maker #1's quote. Based on this trade, the Series Percentage Threshold calculation is 5/[(10)+(0)] = 5/10 = 50%. Since this is the only execution during the Time Period, 50% also represents the Issue Percentage, therefore Market Maker #1's quote is now 1.00 (10)-1.20 (5).
Next, assume at 12:00:01 an Incoming Order to buy 2 contracts for 1.20 trades against Market Maker #1's quote. Based on this trade, the Series Percentage Threshold calculation is 2/[(5)+(5)] = 2/10 = 20%. The Issue Percentage
Finally, presume Market Maker #1's quote is now 1.00 (10)-1.20 (3). At 12:00:02, Market Maker #1 updates his quote in the XYZ 20 strike calls to increase his offer size back to 10 contracts, 1.00 (10)-1.20 (10). An incoming Order to buy 6 contracts for 1.20 trades against Market Maker #1's quote. Based on this trade, the Series Percentage Threshold calculation: 6/[(10)+(7)] = 6/17 = 35.29%. The Issue Percentage calculation is the sum of Series Percentages during the time period, or 50% + 20% + 35.29% = 105.29%. In this scenario, Market Maler[sic] #1's quotes are removed in all series of XYZ since his setting of 100% over 5 seconds has been exceeded.
Example #3 describes the Volume Threshold. Presume the following Order Book:
In this example, assume the Specified Time Period designated by the Market Maker #1 is 10 seconds and the designated number of contracts permitted for the Volume-Based Threshold is 250 contracts. Assume at 12:00:00, the Market Maker #1 executes all of his offer size, 200 contracts, in the 110 Strike Calls. The System will initiate the Specified Time Period and for 10 seconds the System will count all volume executed in series of options class XYZ. If at any point during that 10 second period, the Market Maker #1 executes additional contracts in any series of the options class XYZ, those contracts will be added to the initial execution of 200 contracts. To illustrate, assume at 12:00:05 the Market Maker # 1 executes 60 contracts of his offer in the 100 Strike Calls. The total volume executed is now 260 contracts. Since that volume exceeds the Market Maker #1's designated number of contracts for the Volume Threshold (250 contracts), all of his quotes in all series of the options class XYZ over the Specialized Quote Feed
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In addition, the Exchange's proposal to amend the current Percentage Threshold to: (i) Calculate offsets; and (ii) calculate the Percentage Threshold during a Specified Time Period and for each side in a given series, a percentage, by dividing the size of a Market Maker's quote size executed in a particular series (the numerator) by the Marker Maker's quote size available at the time of execution plus the total number of the Market Marker's quote size previously executed during the unexpired Specified Time Period, will provide Market Makers with greater precision in calculating quoting risks. The Exchange believes that providing Market Makers with tools to calculate risk serves to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest because Market Makers are better able to manage risks with this risk tool.
The Exchange further represents that its proposal will continue to operate consistently with the firm quote obligations of a broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS and that the functionality is mandatory. Specifically, any interest that is executable against a market maker's quotes that are received
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. Specifically, the proposal will not impose a burden on intra-market or inter-market competition, rather it provides market makers with the continued opportunity to avail themselves of risk tools. The proposal does not impose a burden on inter-market competition, because participants may choose to become market makers on a number of other options exchanges, which may have similar but not identical features.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the current Percentage Based risk feature to: (i) Calculate offsets; and (ii) calculate the Percentage Threshold during a Specified Time Period and for each side in a given series, a percentage, by dividing the size of a Market Maker's quote size executed in a particular series (the numerator) by the Marker Maker's quote size available at the time of execution plus the total number of the Market Marker's quote size previously executed during the unexpired Specified Time Period, does not impose an undue burden on competition and is non-controversial because the Exchange offers a Percentage Threshold today. The proposed changes to the Percentage
Further, the Exchange is memorializing more detail concerning the function of the Thresholds with this rule proposal and making clear the method in which the Percentage risk tool is calculated. The risk tools will continue to reduce risk for market makers in the event of a systems issue or due to the occurrence of unusual or unexpected market activity.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
In its filing, GEMX requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay in order to enable the Exchange to accurately reflect in its rules the operation of its risk parameters since the migration to the INET platform. Although the Exchange proposes certain technical changes to how the risk parameters will operate (
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest; for the protection of investors; or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 9, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 9, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (“GEMX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to eliminate non-regular way trading on the Exchange. 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 eliminate non-regular way trading on the Exchange. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend or delete the following rules:
• Rule 12 (“Business Day”);
• Rule 14 (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders);
• Rule 14T (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders);
• Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45—299C);
• Rule 64 (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks);
• Rule 64T (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks);
• Rule 66 (U.S. Government Securities);
• Rule 73 (Seller's Option);
• Rule 123 (Record of Orders);
• Rule 130 (Overnight Comparison of Exchange Transactions);
• Rule 132 (Comparison and Settlement of Transactions Through A Fully-Interfaced or Qualified Clearing Agency);
• Rule 137 (Written Contracts);
• Rule 137A (Samples of Written Contracts);
• Rule 177 (Delivery Time—“Cash” Contracts);
• Rule 179 (“Seller's Option”);
• Rule 189 (Unit of Delivery);
• Rule 235 (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights);
• Rule 235T (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights);
• Rule 236 (Ex-Warrants);
• Rule 236T (Ex-Warrants);
• Rule 241 (Interest—Added to Contract Price);
• Rule 257 (Deliveries After “Ex” Date);
• Rule 257T (Deliveries After “Ex” Date); and
• Rule 282 (Buy-in Procedures).
The current standard trade settlement cycle for most securities transactions is three business days after trade date (“T+3”).
Because non-regular way settlement instructions are infrequently used by market participants,
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend or delete the following Rules:
• Rule 12 defines the term “Business Day” and provides that on any business day that the banks, transfer agencies and depositories for securities in New York State are closed, except for orders containing non-regular way settlement instructions pursuant to Rule 14, deliveries or payments ordinarily due on such a day shall be due on the following business day. As discussed below, Rule 14 is being amended to delete non-regular way settlement. The Exchange accordingly proposes to delete the clause “Except for orders containing non-regular way settlement instructions pursuant to Rule 14,” in Rule 12(1). The Exchange also proposes to delete the clause “other than “cash” contracts made on such a day” in Rule 12(3).
• As noted, Rule 14 provides for non-regular way settlement instructions. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14 to provide that all bids and offers will be deemed regular way. To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to delete (i) the heading of current Rule 14 and replace it with “Bid or Offer Deemed Regular Way,” and (ii) the preamble to current Rule 14, the text of subsections (a) through (e), and the subsection heading “(f).” The Exchange further proposes to replace the rule text with the following text: “Bids and offers will be considered to be `regular way.'” This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. Rule 7.8.
• Rule 14T was adopted in 2016 to reflect the upcoming transition to T+2 to reflect two day settlement.
• Current Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45—299C) sets forth delivery dates for cash, regular way, seller's option and when issued and when distributed contracts for the sale of securities (Rule 64, 65). The Exchange proposes to delete all references to the cash and seller's options. The Exchange proposes the same changes to Current Dealings and Settlements (Rules 45—299C). In the chart addressing contracts for sale of U.S. government bonds (Rule 66), the Exchange similarly proposes to delete all references to the cash and seller's options.
• Rule 64 governs settlement instructions for bonds, rights and 100-share-unit stocks. The Exchange proposes to delete the preamble and all references to non-regular way settlement instructions from this Rule. Specifically, the Exchange would delete “(a) (i) Except as provided in (ii) below, b” and capitalize the “b” in bids in the first sentence. The Exchange proposes to insert a period after “regular way” and delete the clause “
• In light of the changes to Rule 64, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 64T in its entirety as moot.
• Rule 66 governs settlement instructions for U.S. Government securities. The Exchange proposes to insert a period following “regular way” and delete the clause “for that security
• Rule 73 governs seller's option. The heading and rule text would be deleted in their entirety. “Reserved” would replace “Seller's Option” in the heading.
• Rule 123 sets forth certain record keeping requirements for orders. Subsection (f) governs order execution reports and specifies the data elements for such reports. The Exchange proposes to delete data element 14, which relates to non-regular way settlement instructions, and re-number the remaining elements.
• Rule 130 governs overnight comparison of Exchange transactions. The Exchange proposes to delete the phrase “contracts for `regular way', `next day' and `seller's option' settlement, as prescribed in Rule 14, in stocks, rights, warrants,” in subsection (c).
• Rule 132 governs comparison and settlement of transactions through a fully-interfaced or qualified clearing agency (as defined therein). Supplementary Material .30 of the Rule sets forth the necessary trade data elements that clearing member organizations must submit to a fully-interfaced or qualified clearing agency for the comparison and/or settlement of a round-lot regular way contract. The last paragraph of Supplementary Material .30 provides that clearing member organizations that are a party to
• Rule 137 addresses various aspect of written contracts for, among other things, seller's option in stocks and bonds for more than seven days, that are not submitted to the Exchange or to a qualified clearing agency for comparison. The Exchange proposes to delete the clause “`seller's option' transactions in stocks, on `seller's option' transactions in bonds for more than seven days, as prescribed in Rule 14 and on” in the first paragraph of the Rule.
• Rule 137A sets forth examples of written contracts. Supplementary Material .20 of the Rule provides a model for a seller's option contract for stock. The Exchange proposes to delete Supplementary Material .20 in its entirety and that current Supplementary Material .30 become Supplementary Material .20.
• Rule 177 specifies the time for delivery of transactions made for cash. The Exchange proposes to delete the rule text in its entirety and mark it “Reserved.”
• Rule 179 specifies the delivery and notice requirements for securities sold seller's option. The Exchange proposes to delete the rule text in its entirety and mark it “Reserved.”
• Rule 189 provides that buyers shall accept any portion of a lot of securities contracted for if tendered in lots of one trading unit or multiples thereof, and may buy in the undelivered portion as provided in Rule 284, except for sale made seller's option. The Exchange proposes to delete the last clause of the rule addressing the seller's option exception.
• Current Rule 235 provides that transactions in stocks, except those made for cash as prescribed in Rule 14, shall be ex-dividend or ex-rights on the second business day preceding the record date fixed by the corporation or the date of the closing of transfer books. The Exchange proposes to delete the references to transactions made for cash. The same changes are proposed for Rule 235T.
• Current Rule 236 provides that transactions in securities that have subscription warrants attached, except those made for cash as prescribed in Rule 14, will begin on the second business day preceding the date of expiration of the warrants, except that when expiration occurs on a non-business day, in which case it will begin on the third business day preceding date of expiration. The Rule further provides that transactions in securities made for “cash” shall be ex-warrants on the business day following the date of expiration of the warrants. The Exchange proposes to delete the references to transactions made for cash. The same changes are proposed for Rule 236T.
• Rule 241 governs computation of interest on the principal amount in bonds, except that in the case of contracts made seller's option such interest shall be computed only up to but not including the day when delivery would have been due if the contract had been made regular way. The Exchange proposes to delete the last clause in the rule containing the exception for contracts made seller's option.
• Rule 257 governs deliveries after a security is sold before it is ex-dividend or ex-rights. The Exchange proposes to delete the clause referring to securities sold thereafter to and including the record date for cash. The same change is proposed for Rule 257T.
• Rule 282A sets forth the procedures for a buyer to close out a contract in securities, except one where its close-out is governed by the rules of a Qualified Clearing Agency, which has not been completed by the seller in accordance with its terms. Subsection (d) provides that where the buyer is a customer (
The Exchange will announce the operative date of the elimination of non-regular way settlement instructions by Trader Update, which the Exchange anticipates will be before the September 5, 2017 implementation of the T+2 regular way settlement initiative.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that eliminating non-regular way trading on the Exchange removes impediments to and perfects a national market system by eliminating little-used order instructions that involve manual handling by Floor traders, thereby furthering the immediate and automatic execution of orders on the Exchange in the most efficient manner. The Exchange believes that eliminating these order instructions would be consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed by the removal of little-used order instructions that are remnants of a time when the Exchange functioned as a manual auction market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would remove little used, anachronistic order instructions, thereby reducing confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and navigate.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of MISSOURI (FEMA-4317-DR) dated 06/02/2017.
Issued on 07/17/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of MISSOURI, dated 06/02/2017 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 08/14/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of ARKANSAS (FEMA-4318-DR), dated 06/15/2017.
Issued on 07/19/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of ARKANSAS, dated 06/15/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4320-DR), dated 06/23/2017.
Issued on 07/19/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Tennessee, dated 06/23/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Based upon a review of the administrative record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I have concluded that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade (and other aliases), uses the alias Khalid bin Al-Walid Army, also known as Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, also known as Khalid Bin-al-Walid Army, also known as Khalid Bin Al-Waleed army, also known as Jaysh Khalid Bin-al-Walid, also known as Jaish Khaled Bin Alwaleed, also known as Jaysh Khaled bin Al Walid, also known as Army of Khaled Bin Alwaleed, as its primary name.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, I hereby amend the designation of Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist to include the following new aliases: Khalid bin Al-Walid Army, also known as Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, also known as Khalid Bin-al-Walid Army, also known as Khalid Bin Al-Waleed army, also known as Jaysh Khalid Bin-al-Walid, also known as Jaish Khaled Bin Alwaleed, also known as Jaysh Khaled bin Al Walid, also known as Army of Khaled Bin Alwaleed.
This determination shall be published in the
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), a Class I rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8) for its acquisition of temporary overhead trackage rights over a line of railroad of Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) between milepost 681.0 near Pineville, La., and milepost 561.7 near Bossier City, La., a distance of approximately 119.3 miles.
UP states that, pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement (Agreement) dated July 12, 2017,
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36135, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Jeremy M. Berman, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
According to UP, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and historic reporting under 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(3).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Winamac Southern Railway Company (WSRY) and US Rail Holdings, LLC (USRH) (collectively, Applicants), have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
Applicants have certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years and that overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted 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 either is pending 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 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, these exemptions will be effective on August 25, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Applicants' representative: Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1666, Chicago, IL 60604.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void ab initio.
Applicants have filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by July 31, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), Applicants shall file a notice of consummation with the Board, either jointly or individually, to signify that each has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by Applicants' filing of a notice of consummation by July 26, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
June 1-30, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312,
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22 (f) for the time period specified above:
1. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Pad ID: HaynesW P1, ABR-201706001, Harford Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 1, 2017.
2. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Kupetsky, ABR-201211010.R1, Nicholson Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: June 2, 2017.
3. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Amcor, ABR-201211018.R1, Meshoppen Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: June 2, 2017.
4. Pennsylvania General Energy Company, LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 726 Pad B, ABR-201706002, Plunketts Creek Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.5000 mgd; Approval Date: June 7, 2017.
5. Alliance Petroleum Corporation, Pad ID: Sterling Run Club 4, ABR-201706003, Burnside Township, Centre County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 1.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 15, 2017.
6. Alliance Petroleum Corporation, Pad ID: Sterling Run Club 5, ABR-201706004, Burnside Township, Centre County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 1.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 15, 2017.
7. ARD Operating, LLC, Pad ID: Elbow F&G Pad B, ABR-201206007.R1, Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 19, 2017.
8. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Harer 713, ABR-201206004.R1, Liberty Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 19, 2017.
9. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Lovell 707, ABR-201206005.R1, Liberty Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 19, 2017.
10. SWEPI LP, Pad ID: Guillaume 714, ABR-201206009.R1, Liberty Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 19, 2017.
11. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Harvey Drilling Pad, ABR-201212015.R1, Lemon Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 30, 2017.
12. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Cochran Drilling Pad, ABR-201301003.R1, West Burlington Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.0000 mgd; Approval Date: June 30, 2017.
13. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: SGL 12 HARDY DRILLING PAD, ABR-201706005, Overton Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.5000 mgd; Approval Date: June 30, 2017.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the approved by rule projects rescinded by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
June 1-30, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, being rescinded for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and § 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. WPX Energy Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: M. Martin 1V, ABR-201007081.R1, Sugarloaf Township, Columbia County, Pa.; Rescind Date: June 22, 2017.
2. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC 10V, ABR-20090719.R1, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: June 27, 2017.
3. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad CC, ABR-201103027.R1, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: June 27, 2017.
4. EOG Resources, Inc., Pad ID: PHC Pad DD, ABR-201103025.R1, Lawrence Township, Clearfield County, Pa.; Rescind Date: June 27, 2017.
5. Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC, Pad ID: DCNR 594 02 201, ABR-201008037.R1, Liberty Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Rescind Date: June 29, 2017.
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the TVA Board of Directors has renewed the Regional Energy Resource Council (Council) charter for an additional two-year period beginning on August 1, 2017.
Barbie Perdue, 865-632-6113,
Pursuant to FACA and its implementing regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration (GSA) in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), notice is hereby given that the Council has been renewed for a two-year period beginning August 1, 2017. The Council will provide advice to TVA on its energy-related resource activities and the priorities among competing objectives and values.
The Council was originally established in 2013 to advise TVA on its energy-related resource activities, which include the construction and operation of various supply-side resources, including fossil-fueled power plants, nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams, and renewable resources; the development and management of demand-side resources, including energy efficiency; the design, construction and operation
It has been determined that the Council continues to be needed to provide an additional mechanism for public input regarding energy-related issues.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Forty Eighth RTCA SC-206 Plenary Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Forty Eighth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services Plenary. SC-206 is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held September 11-15, 2017 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Forty Eighth RTCA SC206 Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Sub-Groups Meetings
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fifty First RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fifty First RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary
The meeting will be held September 28, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fifty First RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Thirty Fourth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-79.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Thirty Fourth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-79.
The meeting will be held August 17, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held virtually and at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Thirty Fourth RTCA SC-213 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS) Plenary Joint with EUROCAE WG-79. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Thirtieth First RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Thirtieth First RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems Plenary.
The meeting will be held August 31, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: Virtual,
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Thirtieth First RTCA SC-225 Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before August 15, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0160 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brenda Robeson (202) 267-9677, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT), lead Federal agency. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, cooperating agency.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F,
Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
The Final EA addresses the potential environmental impacts of Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne) LLC's (L1's) proposal to launch the LauncherOne at the Mojave Air and Space Port in Kern County, California, for purposes of transporting small satellites into a variety of Low Earth Orbits. The launch system consists of the rocket (LauncherOne) and a carrier aircraft (Boeing 747). To operate LauncherOne at the Mojave Air and Space Port, L1 must obtain a launch license from the FAA. Issuing a launch license is considered a major Federal action subject to environmental review under NEPA. Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would issue a launch license to L1 that would allow L1 to operate LauncherOne from the Mojave Air and Space Port. L1 is proposing a maximum of 115 launches over the course of the 5-year launch license (expected 2017-2021). The maximum number of annual launches during this time period would be 40.
The Final EA evaluated the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch license for the operation of LauncherOne from the Mojave Air and Space Port. Also, the FAA would not modify Mojave Air and Space Port's launch site operator license to include “orbital” reusable launch vehicle missions. The Mojave Air and Space Port would continue its existing operations.
The FAA has posted the Final EA and FONSI on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation Web site:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twenty Third RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Twenty Third RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary.
The meeting will be held August 21-24, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and August 25, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty Third RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twentieth RTCA SC-227 Standards of Navigation Performance Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Twentieth RTCA SC-227 Standards of Navigation Performance Plenary. SC-227 is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held September 20, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Claudia Chaudhari at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twentieth RTCA SC-227 Standards of Navigation Performance Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary.
The meeting will be held September 25-28, 2017.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Eleventh RTCA SC-233 Addressing Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary.
The meeting will be held August 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting hosted at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Seventieth RTCA SC-135 Environmental Testing Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Eighty Fifth RTCA Meeting of Special Committee 147 (Joint Plenary Session with EUROCAE WG-75).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Eighty Fifth RTCA Meeting of Special Committee 147 (Joint Plenary Session with EUROCAE WG-75). SC-147 is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held September 21, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Al Secen at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Eighty Fifth RTCA Meeting of Special Committee 147 (Joint Plenary Session with EUROCAE WG-75). The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; request for scoping comments.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NHTSA intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025 passenger automobiles (referred to herein as “passenger cars”) and non-passenger automobiles (referred to herein as “light trucks”) that NHTSA will be proposing pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This notice initiates the process for determining the scope of considerations to be addressed in the EIS and for identifying any significant environmental matters related to the proposed action. NHTSA invites public comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and the public in this scoping process to help identify and focus any matters of environmental significance and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS.
The scoping process will culminate in the preparation and issuance of a Draft EIS, which will be made available for public comment concurrently with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider scoping comments, scoping comments should be received on or before August 25, 2017. NHTSA will consider comments received after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice. Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.
For technical issues, contact Ken Katz, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, telephone: 202-366-4936, email:
In a forthcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose CAFE standards for MY 2022-2025 passenger cars and light trucks pursuant to EPCA (Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (Dec. 22, 1975)), as amended by EISA (Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)).
The Secretary must prescribe average fuel economy standards by regulation at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year and to set them at “the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that . . . the manufacturers can achieve in that model year.” 49 U.S.C. 32902(a). The standards apply to each manufacturer's fleet average, not to the manufacturer's individual vehicles. The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), must establish average fuel economy standards separately for passenger cars and for light trucks manufactured in each model year.
The standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be “based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy” and expressed “in the form of a mathematical function,” and they may be established for not more than five model years at a time. 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A)-(B). In addition, each manufacturer must meet the minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger cars, which is 92 percent of the projected average fuel economy for the combined domestic and non-domestic passenger car fleet for each model year, calculated at the time the final rule establishing the passenger car standards for those model years is promulgated.
More recently, NHTSA has conducted its fuel economy rulemaking jointly with EPA's rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards. In April 2010, NHTSA and EPA issued a joint final rule establishing fuel economy standards and GHG emissions standards
As part of the final rulemaking, EPA committed to conducting a Mid-Term Evaluation of its GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025. As NHTSA did not issue final CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025 in its 2012 final rule, it does not have any standards for those MYs to be evaluated. Instead, NHTSA is obligated to conduct a
In July 2016, NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board released for public comment a jointly prepared Draft Technical Assessment Report (TAR), which examined a range of matters relevant to CAFE and GHG emissions standards for MYs 2022-2025.
In an upcoming NPRM, NHTSA intends to propose separate attribute-based standards for passenger cars and light trucks for each of MYs 2022-2025. As in the previous CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA plans to propose vehicle footprint
The purpose of and need for an agency's action inform the reasonable range of alternatives to be considered in its NEPA analysis. 40 CFR 1502.13. NHTSA sets CAFE standards as part of a comprehensive energy policy established by EPCA (and amended by EISA) with the purposes of conserving petroleum and of addressing energy independence and security by reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
In developing alternatives for analysis in the EIS, NHTSA must consider EPCA's requirements for setting CAFE standards. As discussed above, EPCA requires NHTSA to determine what level of CAFE stringency would be the “maximum feasible” for each model year, a determination made based on the consideration of four statutory factors: Technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy. 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). In addition, EISA required fuel economy standards for MY 2011-2020 passenger cars and light trucks to “achieve a combined fuel economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for that model year.”
NHTSA is considering the following alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIS:
• A “no action” alternative (also referred to as the “baseline”), which assumes, for purposes of NEPA analysis, that NHTSA would issue a rule that would continue the current CAFE standards for MY 2021 indefinitely. NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of reasonable action alternatives in order to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action alternatives.
• “Action” alternatives represented by calculating a lower bound and upper bound of a range of reasonable annual fuel economy standards, from MY 2022 forward.
• The preferred alternative, reflecting annual fuel economy standards for both passenger cars and light trucks that fall at or between the upper and lower bounds identified above. NHTSA has not yet identified its preferred alternative. NHTSA seeks comments on how it should define and balance the statutory criteria to choose the preferred alternative, given the statutory requirement of setting “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902(f). When suggesting an approach, please explain the recommended way to balance EPCA's factors (technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy).
Thus, NHTSA plans to analyze the impacts of eight different standards in the Draft EIS: Two points bracketing the possible action alternatives for passenger cars, two points bracketing the possible alternatives for light trucks, a No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative for passenger cars, and a No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative for light trucks. We note that the NPRM and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) may analyze additional alternatives within the brackets described in the Draft EIS in order to explore different approaches to balancing the statutory factors.
NHTSA will analyze the lower bound and upper bound of a range of average annual fuel economy standards that would satisfy EPCA's requirement that the standards be “maximum feasible” for each model year, based on the different ways NHTSA could weigh EPCA's four statutory factors. Generally speaking, more stringent average annual fuel economy standards might weigh energy conservation and environmental considerations more heavily and technological feasibility and economic practicability concerns less heavily. In contrast, less stringent average annual fuel economy standards might weigh technological feasibility and economic practicability concerns more heavily and energy conservation and environmental considerations less heavily.
The range of alternatives will reflect differences in the degree of technology adoption across the fleet, in costs to manufacturers and consumers, and in conservation of oil and related impacts to the environment. For example, the most stringent average annual fuel economy standard NHTSA will evaluate would require greater adoption of fuel-saving technology across the fleet, including more advanced technology, than the least stringent average annual fuel economy standard NHTSA will evaluate. As a result, the most stringent alternative would impose greater costs and achieve greater energy conservation.
The changes in stringency considered in the lower and upper bounds may be defined as “average” changes in stringency; the preferred alternative and actual standards may either be constant throughout the period or may vary from year to year. However, analysis of the average yearly change over that period would provide sufficient environmental analysis to bracket the range of environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives and allow for a reasoned choice among the alternatives presented.
NHTSA may select the lower or upper bound levels of stringency for passenger cars and for light trucks as its preferred alternative, or it may select levels of stringency that fall between those bounds. Within the range identified above, NHTSA may consider setting more stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, or, alternatively, setting less stringent standards for the earlier years of the rule than for the later years, depending on our assessment of what would be “maximum feasible” for those time periods for each fleet. In addition, NHTSA may consider setting standards for passenger cars and light trucks that change at different rates between the low and high levels it is considering, depending on a determination of the maximum feasible level for each fleet over time. NHTSA also may select “maximum feasible” fuel economy standards for some or all model years that decrease or remain the same as compared to the immediately prior model year(s).
In selecting a preferred alternative, NHTSA is also mindful of its responsibility under Executive Order 13783, signed by President Donald J. Trump on March 28, 2017, to ensure that “necessary and appropriate environmental regulations comply with the law, are of greater benefit than cost, when permissible, achieve environmental improvements for the American people, and are developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.”
Similar to past EIS practice, NHTSA plans to analyze environmental impacts related to fuel and energy use, emissions and their effects on climate change and the environment,
NHTSA anticipates uncertainty in estimating the potential environmental impacts related to climate change. To account for this uncertainty, NHTSA plans to evaluate a range of potential global temperature changes that may result from changes in fuel and energy consumption and GHG emissions attributable to new CAFE standards. It is difficult to quantify how the specific impacts due to the potential temperature changes attributable to new CAFE standards may affect many aspects of the environment. NHTSA will endeavor to gather the key relevant and credible information using a transparent process that employs the best available peer-reviewed science and economics. NHTSA invites public comments on the scope of its analysis on climate change impacts, including citations to peer-reviewed scientific articles to frame and analyze the relevant issues.
In order to streamline its documentation and eliminate redundancy, NHTSA plans not to include analyses of either monetized health benefits in its air quality analysis or monetized climate change benefits in its climate change analysis in the EIS, as both of those analyses will be included in its RIA (consistent with past practice), which is subject to public notice and comment concurrently with the EIS. NHTSA will incorporate the analyses in the RIA by reference in the EIS consistent with the requirements of the CEQ implementing regulations. 40 CFR 1502.21. The EIS will continue to present analyses on air quality emissions (including non-monetized health impacts), GHG emissions, and climate change impacts (including impacts on CO
NHTSA expects to rely on previously published EISs, incorporating material by reference “when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action.”
NHTSA invites the public to participate in the scoping process
NHTSA is interested in comments on its bracketing approach to presenting a reasonable range of alternatives. Subject to the statutory requirements of EPCA/EISA, a variety of potential alternatives could be considered that meet the purpose and need for the agency's action, each falling along a theoretically infinite continuum of potential standards. As described above, NHTSA plans to address this by identifying alternatives at the upper and lower bounds of a range within which we believe the statutory requirement for “maximum feasible” would be satisfied, as well as identifying and analyzing the impacts of a preferred alternative. In this way, NHTSA expects to bracket the potential environmental impacts of the standards it may select.
Two important purposes of scoping are identifying the significant considerations that merit in-depth analysis in the EIS and identifying and eliminating from detailed analysis the matters that are not significant and therefore require only a brief discussion in the EIS. 40 CFR 1500.4(g), 1501.7(a). In light of these purposes, written comments should include an internet citation (with a date last visited) to each study or report cited in the comments, if one is available. If a document cited is not available to the public online, the commenter should either provide sufficient bibliographical information to allow NHTSA to locate and obtain a copy of the study or attach a copy to the comments.
The more specific the comments are, and the more support they provide in identifying peer-reviewed scientific studies and reports, the more useful the comments will be to the NEPA process. For example, if a comment identifies an additional area of impact or environmental concern that NHTSA should analyze, or an analytical tool or model that NHTSA should use to evaluate these environmental impacts, the comment should clearly describe it and provide a reference to a specific peer-reviewed scientific study, report, tool, or model, if possible. Specific, well-supported comments will help the agency prepare an EIS that is focused and relevant and will serve NEPA's overarching aims of making high quality information available to decisionmakers and the public by “concentrat[ing] on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail.” 40 CFR 1500.1(b). By contrast, mere assertions that the agency should evaluate broad lists or categories of concerns, without support, will not assist the scoping process for the proposed standards.
Please be sure to reference the docket number identified in the heading of this notice in any submitted comments. All comments and materials received, including the names and addresses of the commenters who submit them, will become part of the administrative record and will be posted on the web at
Separate
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of comment solicitation.
PHMSA requests comments on issues being considered during the 51st and 52nd sessions of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG).
Comments must be received by November 17, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number (PHMSA-2017-0037) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Steven Webb or Mr. Aaron Wiener, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-8553.
The 51st session of the UNSCOE TDG was held in Geneva, Switzerland from July 3 to 7, 2017. The 52nd session will be held November 27 to December 6, 2017, also in Geneva. These are the first and second of four meetings scheduled for the 2017-2018 biennium. The UNSCOE TDG will consider amendments to the 20th Revised Edition of the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulations (Model Regulations), and the 6th Revised Edition of the United Nations Manual of Tests and Criteria which may be implemented into relevant domestic, regional, and international regulations after January 1, 2021. Accordingly, PHMSA is soliciting input from interested persons for use in developing U.S. comments on issues to be considered by the UNSCOE TDG. Copies of working documents, informal documents, and the meeting agenda may be obtained from the United Nations (UN) Transport Division's Web site at
Topics on the agenda for the UNSCOE TDG meeting include:
• Explosives and related matters;
• Listing, classification, and packing;
• Electric storage systems;
• Transport of gases;
• Miscellaneous proposals for amendments to the Model Regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods;
• Global harmonization of the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations with the Model Regulations;
• Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency;
• Guiding principles for the Model Regulations; and
• Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).
Following the 51st and 52nd sessions of the UNSCOE TDG, a copy of the Sub-Committee's report for each session will be available at the UN Transport Division's Web site at
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to an Executive order issued on September 23, 2001, titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's action described in this notice was effective on July 21, 2017.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On July 21, 2017, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following individual pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
1. BARKHANOEV, Malik Ruslanovish (a.k.a. “INGUSHI, Saifuddin”; a.k.a. “INGUSHI, Sayfuddin”), Iraq; Syria; DOB 14 Mar 1992; POB Ordzhonikidzevskaya, Ingushetia, Russia; nationality Russia; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT). Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), an entity designated pursuant to E.O. 13224.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor—60 hours.
b. Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination—920 hours.
c. Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress—1,828.5 hours.
d. Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes—729 hours.
e. Clause 852.236-82, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS-CPM), with its Alternate I—1219 hours.
f. Clause 852.236.83, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (including NAS-CPM), with its Alternate I—46 hours.
g. Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor—1 hour.
h. Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination—10 hours.
i. Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress—1 hour.
j. Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes—3 hours.
k. Clause 852.236-82, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS-CPM), with its Alternate I—1 hour.
l. Clause 852.236-83, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (including NAS-CPM), with its Alternate I—.5 hours
a. Clause 852.236-72, Performance of Work by the Contractor—60.
b. Clause 852.236-80, Subcontracts and Work Coordination—92.
c. Clause 852.236-84, Schedule of Work Progress—1,219.
d. Clause 852.236-88, Contract Changes—243.
e. Clause 852.236-82, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (without NAS-CPM), with its Alternate I—1,219.
f. Clause 852.236-83, Payments under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts (including NAS-CPM), with its Alternate I—92.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. VAAR clause 852.236-89, Buy American Act—22 hours.
a. VAAR clause 852.236-89—30 minutes.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the
a. VAAR section 809504(d) and VAAR clause 852.209-7—110 hours.
a. VAAR section 809.504(d) and VAAR clause 852.209-7—1 hour.
By direction of the Secretary.
(a) identifies the military and civilian materiel, raw materials, and other goods that are essential to national security;
(b) identifies the manufacturing capabilities essential to producing the goods identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, including emerging capabilities;
(c) identifies the defense, intelligence, homeland, economic, natural, geopolitical, or other contingencies that may disrupt, strain, compromise, or eliminate the supply chains of goods identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section (including as a result of the elimination of, or failure to develop domestically, the capabilities identified pursuant to subsection (b) of this section) and that are sufficiently likely to arise so as to require reasonable preparation for their occurrence;
(d) assesses the resiliency and capacity of the manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply chains of the United States to support national security needs upon the occurrence of the contingencies identified pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, including an assessment of:
(e) identifies the causes of any aspect of the defense industrial base or national-security-related supply chains assessed as deficient pursuant to subsection (d) of this section; and
(f) recommends such legislative, regulatory, and policy changes and other actions by the President or the heads of agencies as they deem appropriate based upon a reasoned assessment that the benefits outweigh the costs (broadly defined to include any economic, strategic, and national security benefits or costs) over the short, medium, and long run to:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes the hunting seasons, hours, areas, and daily bag and possession limits for migratory game birds. Taking of migratory birds is prohibited unless specifically provided for by annual regulations. This rule permits the taking of designated species during the 2017-18 season.
This rule takes effect on July 26, 2017.
You may inspect comments received on the migratory bird hunting regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia. You may obtain copies of referenced reports from the street address above, or from the Division of Migratory Bird Management's Web site at
Ron W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1714.
On June 10, 2016, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (81 FR 38050). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2017-18 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and
The June 10, 2016, proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2017-18 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
On August 12, 2016, we published in the
On October 25-26, 2016, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2017-18 regulations for these species.
On February 9, 2017, we published in the
The final rule described here is the final in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations for 2017-18, and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for migratory game bird species. This final rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process for the migratory game bird hunting seasons, which started with the June 10, 2016, proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere in this document, we supplemented that proposal on August 12, 2016, and February 9, 2017, and published final season frameworks on May 30, 2017, that provided the season selection criteria from which the States selected these seasons. This final rule sets the migratory game bird hunting seasons based on that input from the States. We previously addressed all comments in the May 30
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this final rule establishes annual harvest limits related to routine hunting or fishing.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section, below). We used this analysis again for the 2017-18 season. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the 2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13, the 2014-15, the 2015-16, the 2016-17, and the 2017-18 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
This rule does not contain any new information collection that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires 5/31/2018).
• 1018-0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017; in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, the agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule allows hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in the June 10, 2016,
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States through the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The preliminary proposed rulemaking (June 10
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for public involvement. We also provided notification of our participation in multiple Flyway Council meetings, opportunities for additional public review and comment on all Flyway Council proposals for regulatory change, and opportunities for additional public review during the Service Regulations Committee meeting. Therefore, we believe that sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons.
Further, States need sufficient time to communicate these season selections to their affected publics, and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement these seasons. Thus, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), these regulations will take effect less than 30 days after publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j; Public Law 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
The following annual hunting regulations provided for by §§ 20.101 through 20.106 and 20.109 of 50 CFR part 20 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations because of their seasonal nature.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset.
CHECK COMMONWEALTH REGULATIONS FOR AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
(a)
(b)
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset. Area descriptions were published in the May 30, 2017,
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the May 30, 2017,
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
(a)
Unless otherwise noted, the seasons listed below are for mourning and white-winged doves. Daily bag and possession limits are in the aggregate for the two species.
(b)
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the May 30, 2017,
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset, except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the May 30, 2017,
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
(a)
(b)
Within the special sea duck areas, the daily bag limit is 5 scoters, eiders, and long-tailed ducks in the aggregate, including no more than 4 scoters, 4 eiders, and 4 long-tailed ducks. Possession limits are three times the daily bag limit. These limits may be in addition to regular duck bag limits only during the regular duck season in the special sea duck hunting areas.
(c)
Unless otherwise specified, the seasons listed below are for teal only.
(d)
(e)
(f)
The following seasons are open only to youth hunters. Youth hunters must be accompanied into the field by an adult at least 18 years of age. This adult cannot duck hunt but may participate in other open seasons.
(1) In
(2) In
(3) In
(4) In
(5) In
(6) In
(7) In
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits on the species designated in this section are as follows:
Shooting and hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset, except as otherwise noted. Area descriptions were published in the May 30, 2017,
Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take sandhill cranes at the level allowed by the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR AREA DESCRIPTIONS AND ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), shooting and hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits on the species designated in this section are as follows:
Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset, except as otherwise restricted by State regulations. Hunting is by State permit only.
Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take swans at the level allowed by the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND DELINEATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS. SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY ON FEDERAL AND STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREAS AND FEDERAL INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
Successful permittees must immediately validate their harvest by that method required in State regulations.
Subject to the applicable provisions of the preceding sections of this part, areas open to hunting, respective open seasons (dates inclusive), hawking hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the species designated in this section are prescribed as follows:
Hawking hours are one-half hour before sunrise until sunset except as otherwise restricted by State regulations.
Area descriptions were published in the May 30, 2017,
CHECK STATE REGULATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND DELINEATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS. SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY ON FEDERAL AND STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREAS AND FEDERAL INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
Although many States permit falconry during the gun seasons, only extended falconry seasons are shown below. Please consult State regulations for details.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) review of the air quality criteria addressing human health effects of oxides of nitrogen and the primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
To request a hearing, to register to speak at a hearing or to inquire if a hearing will be held, please contact Ms. Regina Chappell at (919) 541-3650 or by email at
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0146 to the
Ms. Breanna Alman, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-2351; fax: (919) 541-0237; email:
• Identify the action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions—the agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
A number of the documents that are relevant to this proposed decision are available through the EPA's Web site at
The following topics are discussed in this preamble:
This section summarizes background information about this proposed action and the Administrator's proposed decision to retain the current primary NO
There are currently two primary standards for oxides of nitrogen. NO
Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires the EPA to periodically review the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. This review of the primary (health-based) NO
The last review of the primary NO
Consistent with the review completed in 2010, this review is focused on the health effects associated with gaseous oxides of nitrogen and on the protection afforded by the primary NO
In this notice, the EPA is proposing to retain the current primary NO
As in the last review, the strongest evidence continues to come from studies examining respiratory effects following short-term NO
Evidence supporting the ISA conclusion also comes from epidemiologic studies reporting associations between short-term NO
In addition to the effects of short-term exposures, the ISA concludes that there is “likely to be a causal relationship” between long-term NO
While the evidence supports the occurrence of adverse NO
Beyond the scientific evidence, the EPA also considers the extent to which quantitative analyses can inform conclusions on the adequacy of the public health protection provided by the current primary NO
When taken together, the Administrator reaches the proposed conclusion that the current body of scientific evidence and the results of quantitative analyses support the degree of public health protection provided by the current 1-hour and annual primary NO
These proposed conclusions are consistent with CASAC recommendations. In its advice to the Administrator, “the CASAC recommends retaining, and not changing the existing suite of standards” (Diez Roux and Sheppard, 2017). The CASAC further stated that “it is the suite of the current 1-hour and annual standards, together, that provide protection against adverse effects” (Diez Roux and Sheppard, 2017, p. 9).
Therefore, in this review, the Administrator proposes to retain the current primary NO
Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in his “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;” “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources;” and “for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria. . . .” Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . . .” 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the Administrator to propose and promulgate “primary” and “secondary” NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as one “the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.”
The requirement that primary standards provide an adequate margin of safety was intended to address uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and technical information available at the time of standard setting. It was also intended to provide a reasonable degree of protection against hazards that research has not yet identified.
In addressing the requirement for an adequate margin of safety, the EPA considers such factors as the nature and severity of the health effects involved, the size of sensitive population(s) at risk,
In setting primary and secondary standards that are “requisite” to protect public health and welfare, respectively, as provided in section 109(b), the EPA's task is to establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent than necessary for these purposes. In so doing, the EPA may not consider the costs of implementing the standards.
Section 109(d)(1) requires that “not later than December 31, 1980, and at 5-year intervals thereafter, the Administrator shall complete a thorough review of the criteria published under section 108 and the national ambient air quality standards . . . and shall make such revisions in such criteria and standards and promulgate such new standards as may be appropriate . . . . ” Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate . . . .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
States are primarily responsible for ensuring attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards once EPA has established them. Under section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and related provisions, states are to submit, for EPA approval, state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the attainment and maintenance of such standards through control programs directed to sources of the pollutants involved. The states, in conjunction with EPA, also administer the prevention of significant deterioration program that covers these pollutants. See 42 U.S.C. 7470-7479. In addition, federal programs provide for nationwide reductions in emissions of these and other air pollutants under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521-7574, which involves controls for automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, nonroad engine and equipment, and aircraft emissions; the new source performance standards (NSPS) under section 111 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411; and the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412.
Currently there are no areas in the United States that are designated as nonattainment of the NO
While NO
NO
In 1971, the EPA added oxides of nitrogen to the list of criteria pollutants under section 108(a)(1) of the CAA and issued the initial air quality criteria (36 FR 1515, January 30, 1971; U.S. EPA, 1971).
Industry groups filed petitions for judicial review of the 2010 rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Subsequent to the 2010 rulemaking, the Agency revised the deadlines by which the near-road monitors were to be operational in order to implement a phased deployment approach (78 FR 16184, March 14, 2013), with a majority of the network becoming operational by 2015. In 2016, after analyzing available monitoring data, the Agency revised the size requirements of the near-road network, reducing the network to only operate in Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) with populations of 1 million or more (81 FR 96381, December 30, 2016).
In February 2012, the EPA announced the initiation of the current periodic review of the air quality criteria for oxides of nitrogen and of the primary NO
Based in part on the workshop discussions, the EPA developed a draft plan for the ISA and a draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) outlining the schedule, process, and key policy-relevant questions that would guide the evaluation of the health-related air quality criteria for NO
The EPA released the second draft ISA in January 2015 (80 FR 5110) and the Risk and Exposure Assessment (REA) Planning document in May 2015 (80 FR 27304). These documents were reviewed by the CASAC at a public meeting held in June 2015 (80 FR 22993). A follow-up teleconference with the CASAC was held in August 2015 (80 FR 43085) to finalize recommendations on the second draft ISA. The final ISA was released in January 2016 (81 FR 4910). The CASAC's recommendations on the second draft ISA and the draft REA Plan were provided to the EPA in letters dated September 9, 2015 (Diez Roux and Frey, 2015a; Diez Roux and Frey 2015b), and the final ISA was released in January, 2016 (81 FR 4910).
After considering CASAC's advice and public comments, the EPA prepared a draft Policy Assessment (PA), which was released on September 23, 2016 (81 FR 65353). The draft PA was reviewed by the CASAC on November 9-10, 2016 (81 FR 68414), and a follow-up teleconference was held on January 24, 2017 (81 FR 95137). The CASAC's recommendations, based on its review of the draft PA, were provided in a letter to the EPA Administrator dated March 7, 2017 (Diez Roux and Sheppard, 2017). The EPA staff took into account these recommendations, as well as public comments provided on the draft PA, when developing the final PA, which was released in April 2017.
In addition, in July 2016, a lawsuit was filed against the EPA and included a claim that EPA had failed to complete its review of the primary NO
Consistent with the review completed in 2010, this review is focused on health effects associated with gaseous oxides of nitrogen and the protection afforded by the primary NO
This section presents the rationale for the Administrator's proposed decision to retain the existing NO
In presenting the rationale for the Administrator's proposed decision and its foundations, Section II.A provides background on the general approach for review of the primary NO
The past and current approaches described below are both based, most fundamentally, on using the EPA's assessment of the current scientific evidence and associated quantitative analyses to inform the Administrator's judgment regarding primary NO
The last review of the primary NO
The 2010 decision to revise the existing primary NO
As an initial consideration in reaching that decision, the Administrator noted that the evidence relating short-term (minutes to weeks) NO
The quantitative analyses presented in the 2008 REA included exposure and risk estimates for air-quality adjusted to just meet the annual standard. The Administrator took note of the REA conclusion that risks estimated for air quality adjusted upward to simulate just meeting the current standard could reasonably be concluded to be important from a public health perspective, while additionally recognizing the uncertainties associated with adjusting air quality in such analyses (75 FR 6489, February 9, 2010). For air quality adjusted to just meet the existing annual standard, the REA findings given particular attention by the Administrator included the following: “a large percentage (8 to 9%) of respiratory-related [emergency department] visits in Atlanta could be associated with short-term NO
In reaching the conclusion on adequacy of the annual standard alone, the Administrator also considered advice received from the CASAC. In its advice, the CASAC agreed that the primary concern in the review was to protect against health effects that have been associated with short-term NO
Based on the considerations summarized above, the Administrator concluded that the annual NO
In considering appropriate revisions in the last review, each of the four basic elements of the NAAQS (indicator, averaging time, level, and form) were evaluated. The sections below summarize the approaches used by the Administrator, and her final decisions, on each of those elements.
In the review completed in 2010, as well as in previous reviews, the EPA focused on NO
In considering the most appropriate averaging time(s) for the primary NO
When considering averaging time, the Administrator first noted that the evidence relating short-term (minutes to weeks) NO
Based on the above, the Administrator judged that it was appropriate to set a new NO
With consideration of the available health effects evidence, exposure and risk analyses, and air quality information, the Administrator set the level of the new 1-hour NO
In setting the level of the new 1-hour standard at 100 ppb, the Administrator noted that there is no bright line clearly directing the choice of level. Rather, the choice of what is appropriate is largely a public health policy judgment entrusted to the Administrator. This judgment must include consideration of the strengths and limitations of the evidence and the appropriate inferences to be drawn from the evidence and the exposure and risk assessments.
The Administrator judged that the existing evidence from controlled human exposure studies supported the conclusion that the NO
The Administrator also considered the more serious health effects reported in NO
Given the above considerations and the comments received on the proposal, and considering the entire body of evidence and information before her, as well as the related uncertainties, the Administrator judged it appropriate to set a 1-hour standard with a level of 100 ppb. Specifically, she concluded that such a standard, with an appropriate form as discussed below, would provide a substantial increase in public health protection compared to that provided by the annual standard alone and would be expected to protect against the respiratory effects that have been linked with NO
In setting the standard level at 100 ppb rather than at a lower level, the Administrator also acknowledged the
The “form” of a standard defines the air quality statistic that is to be compared to the level of the standard in determining whether an area attains the standard. The Administrator recognized that for short-term standards, concentration-based forms that reflect consideration of a statistical characterization of an entire distribution of air quality data, with a focus on a single statistical metric such as the 98th or 99th percentile, can better reflect pollutant-associated health risks than forms based on expected exceedances. This is the case because concentration-based forms give proportionally greater weight to days when pollutant concentrations are well above the level of the standard than to days when the concentrations are just above the level of the standard.
In the last review, the EPA considered two specific concentration-based forms (
Given the limited available information on the variability in peak NO
While the available scientific information informing the last review was stronger and more consistent than in previous reviews and provided a strong basis for decision making in that review, the Agency recognized that areas of uncertainty remained. These were generally related to the following: (1) Understanding the role of NO
The approach in this review of the primary NO
In the current review, the EPA's approach recognizes that the available health effects evidence reflects a continuum from relatively higher NO
The final decision on the primary NO
To inform the Administrator's judgments and decisions, the PA presents evidence-based and exposure/risk-based considerations. Evidence-based considerations focus on the findings of epidemiologic studies, controlled human exposure studies, and experimental animal studies evaluating health effects related to NO
This section presents information on NO
Ambient concentrations of NO
Due to the close relationship between NO and NO
Ambient concentrations of NO
Long-term trends in NO
The largest single source of NO
When considering the historical relationships between NO
In addition, data from the recently deployed network
Control programs have resulted in substantial reductions in NO
This section summarizes the available scientific evidence on the health effects of NO
In the current review of the primary NO
With regard to characterization of the health effects evidence, the ISA uses a five-level hierarchy to classify the overall weight of evidence into one of the following categories: causal relationship; likely to be a causal relationship; suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship; inadequate to infer a causal relationship; and not likely to be a causal relationship (U.S. EPA, 2015, Preamble Table II). The PA considers the full body of health evidence addressed in the ISA, placing the greatest emphasis on the effects for which the evidence has been judged in the ISA to demonstrate a “causal” or a “likely to be a causal” relationship with NO
With regard to identifying specific populations or lifestages that may be at increased risk of health effects related to NO
Section II.C.1 summarizes the evidence for effects related to short-term NO
This section discusses the evidence for health effects following short-term NO
Across previous reviews of the primary NO
For the current review, there is newly available evidence for both respiratory effects and other health effects critically evaluated in the ISA as part of the full body of evidence informing the nature of the relationship between health effects and short-term exposures to NO
The ISA concludes that evidence supports a causal relationship between respiratory effects and short-term NO
Strong evidence supporting this causal determination in the ISA comes from a meta-analysis of controlled human exposure studies that evaluate the potential for increased AR
The results from the meta-analysis demonstrate that the majority of study volunteers with asthma experienced increased AR following resting exposure to NO
The ISA further characterizes the clinical relevance of these increases in AR, using an approach that is based on guidelines from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) for the assessment of therapeutic agents (Reddel et al., 2009). Specifically, based on individual-level responses reported in a subset of studies, the ISA considered a halving of the provocative dose (PD) to indicate responses that may be clinically relevant.
Based on a subset of the controlled human exposure studies considered in the ISA, Brown (2015) shows that NO
Controlled human exposure studies discussed in the ISA also evaluated a range of other respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, respiratory symptoms, and pulmonary inflammation. The evidence does not consistently demonstrate these effects following exposures to NO
In addition to this evidence for NO
In assessing the evidence from epidemiologic studies, the ISA not only considers the consistency of effects across studies, but also evaluates other study attributes that affect study quality, including potential confounding and exposure assignment. Regarding potential confounding, the ISA notes that NO
The ISA also notes that results based on personal exposures or pollutants measured at people's locations provide support for NO
Overall, the strongest evidence supporting the conclusion of the causal relationship determined in the ISA comes from controlled human exposure studies demonstrating NO
The evidence for cardiovascular health effects and short-term NO
The ISA concludes that the evidence for short-term NO
In evaluating what the available health evidence indicates with regard to the degree of public health protection provided by the current standards, it is appropriate to consider the short-term NO
In evaluating the NO
Controlled human exposure studies, most of which were available and considered in the last review, have evaluated various respiratory effects following short-term NO
Evidence for respiratory effects following exposures to NO
Thus, in considering the exposure concentrations evaluated in controlled human exposure studies, the PA focuses on the body of evidence for NO
In first considering controlled human exposure studies conducted at rest, the PA notes that the lowest NO
In next considering studies in individuals with asthma conducted with exercise, the PA notes that three studies evaluated NO
Several studies evaluated exposures of individuals with asthma to NO
As discussed above, the ISA assessment of the evidence for AR in individuals with asthma also focuses on a recently published meta-analysis (Brown, 2015) investigating individual-level data from controlled human exposure studies. While individual controlled human exposure studies can lack statistical power to identify effects, the meta-analysis of individual-level data combined from multiple studies (Brown, 2015) has greater statistical
When evaluating results from the meta-analysis, first the PA considers results across all exposure conditions (
The PA also considers the results of Brown (2015) for various subsets of the available studies, based on the exposure conditions evaluated (
In contrast to the results from studies conducted at rest, the fraction of individuals having an increase in AR following NO
In addition to examining results from studies of non-specific AR, the meta-analysis also considered results from studies that evaluated changes in specific AR (
When considering the evidence for NO
Both the meta-analysis by Brown (2015) and an additional meta-analysis and meta-regression by Goodman et al. (2009) conclude that there is no indication of a dose-response relationship for exposures between 100 and 500 ppb NO
An additional uncertainty in interpreting these studies within the context of considering the adequacy of the protection provided by the NO
Five studies provided data for each individual's provocative dose. These five studies provided individual-level data for a total of 72 study participants (116 AR measurements) and eight NO
As in the last review, a meta-analysis of individual-level data supports the potential for increased AR in individuals with generally mild asthma following 30 minute to 1 hour exposures to NO
In addition to considering the exposure concentrations evaluated in the controlled human exposure studies, the PA also considers distributions of ambient NO
Addressing this question can provide important insights into the extent to which NO
In addressing the question above, the PA places the greatest emphasis on studies reporting positive, and relatively precise (
The PA evaluates U.S. and Canadian studies of respiratory-related hospital admissions and ED visits, with a focus on studies of asthma-related effects (studies identified from Table 5-10 in U.S. EPA, 2016a).
A key limitation in these analyses of NO
With this key limitation in mind, the PA considers what the available epidemiologic evidence indicates with regard to the adequacy of the public health protection provided by the current 1-hour standard against short-term NO
In considering the epidemiologic information presented in the U.S. and Canadian studies, the PA notes that multi-city studies tend to have greater power to detect associations. The one multi-city study that has become available since the last review (Stieb et al., 2009) reported a null association with asthma ED visits, based on study locations with maximum estimated DVs ranging from 67-242 ppb (six of seven study cities had maximum estimated DVs at or above 85 ppb). Of the single city studies identified, those reporting positive and relatively precise associations were conducted in locations with maximum, and often mean, estimated DVs at or above 100 ppb (
An uncertainty in this body of evidence is the potential for copollutant confounding. Copollutant (two-pollutant) models can be used in epidemiologic studies in an effort to disentangle the independent pollutant effects, though there can be limitations in these models due to differential exposure measurement error and high correlations with traffic-related copollutants. For NO
Considering this evidence together, the PA notes the following observations. First, the only recent multicity study evaluated, which had maximum estimated DVs ranging from 67 to 242 ppb, did not report a positive association between NO
Thus, while epidemiologic studies provide support for NO
This section discusses the evidence for health effects associated with long-term NO
In the last review of the primary NO
Chapter 6 of the ISA presents a detailed assessment of the evidence for health effects associated with long-term NO
The 2016 ISA concluded that there is “likely to be a causal relationship” between long-term NO
The conclusion of a “likely to be a causal relationship” in the current review represents a change from 2008 ISA conclusion that the evidence was “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship” (U.S. EPA, 2008a, Section 5.3.2.4). This strengthening of the causal determination is due to the epidemiologic evidence base, which has expanded since the last review and biological plausibility from some experimental studies (U.S. EPA, 2016 Table 1-1). This expanded evidence includes several recently published longitudinal studies that indicate positive associations between asthma incidence in children and long-term NO
While the causal determination has been strengthened in this review,
The ISA also evaluated copollutant confounding in long-term exposure studies beyond asthma incidence to examine whether studies of other respiratory effects could provide information on the potential for confounding by traffic-related copollutants. Several studies examined correlations between NO
While this uncertainty continues to apply to the epidemiologic evidence for asthma incidence in children, the ISA describes that the uncertainty is partly reduced by the coherence of findings from experimental studies and epidemiologic studies. Experimental studies demonstrate effects on key events in the mode of action proposed for the development of asthma and provide biological plausibility for the epidemiologic evidence. For example, one study demonstrated that airway hyperresponsiveness was induced in guinea pigs after long-term exposure to NO
Overall, the ISA notes that there is new evidence available that strengthens conclusions from the last review regarding respiratory health effects attributable to long-term ambient NO
In the previous review, the 2008 ISA stated that the evidence for cardiovascular effects attributable to long-term ambient NO
In the previous review, a limited number of epidemiologic and toxicological studies had assessed the relationship between long-term NO
In the 2008 ISA, a limited number of epidemiologic studies assessed the relationship between long-term exposure to NO
Some recent studies examined the potential for copollutant confounding by PM
The evidence evaluated in the 2008 ISA was judged “inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship” (U.S. EPA, 2008a) based on a few epidemiologic studies indicating associations between long-term NO
In evaluating what the available health evidence indicates with regard to the degree of public health protection provided by the current standards, it is appropriate to consider the long-term NO
In evaluating the long-term NO
As discussed above for short-term exposures (Section II.C.1), when considering epidemiologic studies of long term NO
The epidemiologic studies available in the current review that evaluate associations between long-term NO
Effect estimates in U.S. and Canadian studies are generally positive and, in some cases, statistically significant and relatively precise (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Table 6-1; U.S. EPA, 2017a, Figure). However, there are important uncertainties in this body of evidence for asthma incidence, limiting the extent to which these studies can inform consideration of the adequacy of the current NO
Another important uncertainty is the potential for exposure measurement error in these epidemiologic studies. The ISA states that “a key issue in evaluating the strength of inference about NO
Overall, in revisiting the first question posed above, the PA notes that U.S. and Canadian epidemiologic studies report positive, and in some cases relatively precise, associations between long-term NO
While keeping in mind these uncertainties, the PA next considers the ambient NO
As discussed above for short-term exposures (Section II.C.1), addressing this question can provide important insights into the extent to which NO
To evaluate this issue, the PA compares NO
The initiating events in the development of respiratory effects due to long-term NO
Thus, when considering the protection provided by the current standards against NO
To inform consideration of whether a study area's air quality could have met the current primary NO
In interpreting these comparisons of DV estimates with the NO
In considering the epidemiologic studies looking at long-term NO
The PA also considers the information from the other U.S. and Canadian studies available that, due to additional uncertainties, were not identified as key studies in the ISA (Clark et al., 2010; McConnell et al., 2010; Nishimura et al., 2013). The multi-city study by Nishimura et al. (2013) reports a positive and relatively precise association with asthma incidence, based on five U.S. cities and Puerto Rico (see “combined” estimate in Figure 3-2 of the NO
Based on the information discussed above, while epidemiologic studies provide support for NO
With regard to uncertainties in the evidence, the PA particularly notes the potential for confounding by co-occurring pollutants, as described above, given the following: (1) The relatively high correlations observed between long-term concentrations of NO
Furthermore, the analysis of study area estimated DVs does not provide support for the occurrence of NO
In addition to the evidence from epidemiologic studies, the PA also considers evidence from experimental studies in animals and humans.
Taking all of the evidence and information together, including important uncertainties, the PA revisits the extent to which the evidence supports the occurrence of NO
Evaluation of the public health protection provided against ambient NO
In the current review, the 2016 ISA again notes because of the large populations attending school, living, working, and commuting on or near roads, where ambient NO
The impacts of exposures to elevated NO
The ISA evaluates the evidence for a number of potential at-risk factors, including pre-existing diseases like asthma (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 7.3), genetic factors (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 7.4), sociodemographic factors (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 7.5), and behavioral and other factors (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 7.6). The ISA then uses a systematic approach for classifying the evidence for each potential at-risk factor (U.S. EPA, 2015, Preamble, Section 6.a, Table III). The categories considered are “adequate evidence,” “suggestive evidence,” “inadequate evidence,” and “evidence of no effect” (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Table 7-1). Consistent with other recent NAAQS reviews (
The PA's consideration of the evidence supporting these at-risk populations specifically focuses on the following question: To what extent does the currently available scientific evidence expand the understanding of populations and/or lifestages that may be at greater risk for NO
In addressing this question, the PA considers the evidence for effects in people with asthma, children, and older adults (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Chapter 7, Table 7-27). This section presents the PA's overall conclusions regarding the populations at increased risk of NO
Approximately 8.0% of adults and 9.3% of children (age <18 years) in the U.S. currently have asthma (Blackwell et al., 2014; Bloom et al., 2013), and it is the leading chronic illness affecting children (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 7.3.1). Individuals with pre-existing diseases like asthma may be at greater risk for some air pollution-related health effects if they are in a compromised biological state.
As in the last review, controlled human exposure studies demonstrating NO
According to the 2010 census, 24% of the U.S. population is less than 18 years of age, with 6.5% less than age 6 years (Howden and Meyer, 2011). The National Human Activity Pattern Survey shows that children spend more time than adults outdoors (Klepeis et al., 1996), and a longitudinal study in California showed a larger proportion of children reported spending time engaged in moderate or vigorous outdoor physical activity (Wu et al., 2011b). In addition, children have a higher propensity than adults for oronasal breathing (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 4.2.2.3) and the human respiratory system is not fully developed until 18-20 years of age (U.S. EPA, 2016a, Section 7.5.1). All of these factors could contribute to children being at higher risk than adults for effects attributable to ambient NO
Epidemiologic evidence across diverse locations (U.S., Canada, Europe, Asia, Australia) consistently demonstrates adverse effects of both short- and long-term NO
According to the 2012 National Population Projections issued by the U.S. Census Bureau, 13% of the U.S. population was age 65 years or older in 2010, and by 2030, this fraction is estimated to grow to 20% (Ortman et al., 2014). Recent epidemiologic findings expand on evidence available in the 2008 ISA that older adults may be at increased risk for NO
As described in the PA, and consistent with the last review, the ISA determined that the available evidence is adequate to conclude that people with asthma, children, and older adults are at increased risk for NO
Beyond the consideration of the scientific evidence, discussed above in Section II.C, the EPA also considers the extent to which new or updated quantitative analyses of NO
To provide insight into the potential occurrence of NO
Air quality-benchmark comparisons were conducted in study areas with unadjusted air quality and with air quality adjusted upward to just meet the existing 1-hour standard.
In identifying the range of NO
In considering the results of these updated analyses, the EPA focuses on the number of days per year that such 1-hour NO
Based on the results of these analyses (U.S. EPA, 2017a, Tables 4-1 and 4-2), the EPA makes the following key observations for study areas when air quality was unadjusted (“as-is”) and when air quality was adjusted to just meet the current 1-hour NO
For unadjusted air quality:
• One-hour ambient NO
○ Even in the worst-case years (
• One-hour ambient NO
○ Even in the worst-case years, most study areas had either zero or one day with 1-hour NO
For air quality adjusted to just meet the current primary 1-hour NO
• The current standard is estimated to allow no days in study areas with 1-hour ambient NO
• The current standard is estimated to allow almost no days with 1-hour ambient NO
○ In the worst-case years in most study areas, the current standard is estimated to allow either zero or one day with 1-hour ambient NO
• At area-wide monitoring sites in most of the study areas, the current standard is estimated to allow from one to seven days per year, on average, with 1-hour ambient NO
○ In the worst-case years in most of the study areas, the current standard is estimated to allow from about 5 to 20 days with 1-hour NO
There are a variety of limitations and uncertainties in these comparisons of NO
The primary goal of this analysis is to inform conclusions regarding the potential for the existing primary NO
With regard to the magnitude and clinical relevance of the NO
These analyses use historical air quality relationships as the basis for adjusting ambient NO
There is also uncertainty in the upward adjustment of NO
To the extent there are unmonitored locations where ambient NO
In the current review, given that the 23 selected study areas have among the highest NO
This conclusion is consistent with the ISA's analysis of available data from near-road NO
It is also important to consider the degree to which air quality-benchmark comparisons appropriately characterize the potential for NO
Table 2-12 in the ISA (U.S. EPA, 2016a) summarizes NO
As discussed above and in the REA Planning document (U.S. EPA, 2015, Section 2.1.1), an important uncertainty identified in the 2008 REA was the characterization of 1-hour NO
As discussed in Section II.B.2, recent NO
Analyses of air quality adjusted upwards to just meet the current 1-hour standard estimate no days with 1-hour NO
These results are consistent with expectations, given that the current 1-hour standard, with its 98th percentile form, is anticipated to limit, but not eliminate, exposures to 1-hour NO
When these results and associated uncertainties are taken together, the current 1-hour NO
Given the results of these analyses, and the uncertainties inherent in their interpretation, the PA concludes that there is little potential for exposures to ambient NO
In the current review of the primary NO
Briefly, with regard to the strength of the evidence for respiratory effects, the CASAC agreed with the ISA conclusions. In particular, the CASAC concurred “with the finding that short-term exposures to NO
Long-term exposures to NO
With regard to support for the updated quantitative analyses conducted in the current review, the CASAC agreed with the conclusions in the PA.
In addition, in its review of the draft PA, the CASAC concurred with staff's overall preliminary conclusions that it is appropriate to consider retaining the current primary NO
In evaluating whether, in view of the advances in scientific knowledge and additional information now available, it is appropriate to retain or revise the current primary NO
The following sections summarize these evidence-based (Section II.F.1) and exposure-/risk-based (Section II.F.2) considerations and the advice received from CASAC (Section II.F.3). Section II.F.4 presents the Administrator's proposed conclusions regarding the adequacy of the current primary NO
As discussed in Section II.C, in considering the evidence available in the current review with regard to adequacy of the current 1-hour and annual NO
With regard to short-term NO
The strongest evidence supporting this ISA causal determination comes from controlled human exposure studies demonstrating NO
Supporting evidence for a range of NO
Thus, while some new evidence is available in this review, that new evidence has not substantially altered the understanding of the respiratory effects that occur following short-term NO
With regard to long-term NO
Given the evaluation of the evidence in the ISA, and the ISA's causal determinations, the EPA's further consideration of the evidence focuses on studies of asthma exacerbation (short-term exposures) and asthma development (long-term exposures), and on what these bodies of evidence indicate with regard to the basic elements of the current primary NO
The indicator for both the current annual and 1-hour NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen is NO
The current primary NO
In establishing the 1-hour standard in the last review, the Administrator considered evidence from both experimental and epidemiologic studies. She noted that controlled human exposure studies and animal toxicological studies provided evidence that NO
Based on the considerations summarized above, the Administrator judged in the last review that it was appropriate to set a new NO
As in the last review, support for a standard with a 1-hour averaging time comes from both the experimental and epidemiologic evidence. Controlled human exposure studies evaluated in the ISA continue to provide evidence that NO
With regard to protecting against long-term exposures, the evidence supports considering the overall protection provided by the combination of the annual and 1-hour standards. The current annual standard was originally promulgated in 1971 (36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971), based on epidemiologic studies reporting associations between respiratory disease and long-term exposure to NO
As described above, evidence newly available in the current review demonstrates associations between long-term NO
In evaluating the extent to which evidence supports or calls into question the levels or forms of the current NO
Controlled human exposure studies demonstrate the potential for increased AR in some people with asthma following 30-minute to 1-hour exposures to NO
When individual-level data were combined in a meta-analysis, Brown (2015) reported that statistically significant majorities of study participants experienced increased AR following resting exposures to NO
The epidemiologic evidence from U.S. and Canadian studies, as considered in the PA, provides information about the ambient NO
With regard to epidemiologic studies of short-term NO
In giving further consideration specifically to the form of 1-hour standard, the PA notes that the available evidence and information in this review is consistent with that informing consideration of form in the last review. The last review focused on the upper percentiles of the distribution of NO
With regard to health effects related to long-term NO
In the current review, the strengthened “likely to be causal” relationship between long-term NO
While the PA recognizes the above uncertainties, it considers what studies of long-term NO
As such, when considering the ambient NO
As discussed in Section II.C.1, while annual estimated DVs in study locations were often below 53 ppb, maximum 1-hour estimated DVs in most locations were near or above 100 ppb. Because these study-specific estimated DVs are based on the area-wide NO
Given the paucity of epidemiologic studies conducted in areas that were close to or below the current standards, and considering that no near road monitors were in place during the study periods, the PA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence does not provide support for NO
Taking note of the conclusions in the PA, and based on the information discussed above, the EPA revisits the question posed above: To what extent does the evidence indicate adverse respiratory effects attributable to short- or long-term NO
In addressing this question, the PA notes that (1) experimental studies do not indicate adverse respiratory effects attributable to either short- or long-term NO
As described in greater detail in Section II.D above, and in the REA Planning document (U.S. EPA, 2015, Section 2.1.1) and the PA (U.S. EPA, 2017a, Chapter 4), the EPA conducted updated analyses comparing ambient NO
When considering analyses comparing NO
As discussed in Section II.D, benchmarks are based on information from controlled human exposure studies of NO
When taken together, the results of individual controlled human exposure studies and of the meta-analysis by Brown (2015) support consideration of NO
In further considering the potential public health implications of exposures to NO
As discussed in Section II.D, analyses of unadjusted air quality, which meets the current standards in all locations, indicate almost no potential for 1-hour exposures to NO
These analyses indicate that the current 1-hour NO
As discussed above (Section II.E), in the current review of the primary standards for NO
•
•
•
•
In addition, CASAC also provided advice on areas for additional research based on key areas of uncertainty that came up during the review cycle (Diez Roux and Sheppard, 2017, p. 10-12). As part of this advice, CASAC stated that “[t]here is an ongoing need for research in multipollutant exposure and epidemiology to attempt to distinguish the contribution to NO
Taking into consideration the large body of evidence concerning NO
As an initial matter, the Administrator takes note of the well-established body of scientific evidence supporting the occurrence of respiratory effects following NO
With regard to long-term NO
In addition, the Administrator acknowledges that the evidence for some non-respiratory effects has strengthened since the last review. In particular, based on the assessment of the evidence in the ISA, he notes the stronger evidence for NO
The Administrator's evaluation of the public health protection provided against ambient NO
The Administrator further uses the scientific evidence outlined above, and described in detail in the ISA (U.S. EPA, 2016a), to directly inform his consideration of the adequacy of the public health protection provided by the current primary NO
In doing so, the Administrator focuses on the results of controlled human exposure studies of AR in people with asthma and on the results of U.S. and Canadian epidemiologic studies of asthma-related hospital admissions, asthma-related emergency department visits, and asthma development in children. He particularly emphasizes the results of controlled human exposure studies, which were identified in the ISA as providing “[t]he key evidence that NO
In considering the controlled human exposure studies of AR, the Administrator focuses both on the results of an updated meta-analysis of data from these studies and on the consistency of findings across individual studies. As discussed above, and consistent with the evidence in the last review, the meta-analysis indicates that the majority of study volunteers, generally with mild asthma, experienced increased AR following 30-minute to 1-hour resting exposures to NO
When the information discussed above is taken together, the Administrator judges it appropriate to consider the degree of protection provided against exposures to NO
In further considering the potential public health implications of controlled human exposure studies, the Administrator looks to the results of quantitative comparisons between NO
The Administrator additionally recognizes that, even when ambient NO
Based on the information above, the Administrator reaches the proposed conclusion that evidence from controlled human exposure studies of AR, together with analyses comparing ambient NO
Although the NO
With regard to studies of short-term NO
With regard to studies of long-term NO
Taking all of these considerations into account, the Administrator reaches the proposed conclusion that the current body of scientific evidence, in combination with the results of quantitative analyses comparing NO
In particular, with regard to short-term exposures and the current 1-hour standard, the Administrator takes note of the well-established body of scientific evidence supporting the occurrence of respiratory effects following short-term NO
• Meeting the current 1-hour NO
• Meeting the current 1-hour standard limits the potential for exposures to 1-hour concentrations at or above 100 ppb. Thus, the current standard provides protection against NO
• Meeting the current 1-hour standard is expected to maintain ambient NO
In addition, with regard to long-term NO
Therefore, in this review, the Administrator proposes to retain the current primary NO
Inherent in the Administrator's proposed conclusions are public health policy judgments on the public health implications of the available scientific evidence and analyses, including how to weigh associated uncertainties. These public health policy judgments include judgments related to the appropriate degree of public health protection that should be afforded against risk of respiratory morbidity in at-risk populations, such as the potential for worsened respiratory effects in people with asthma, as well judgments related to the appropriate weight to be given to various aspects of the evidence and quantitative analyses, including how to consider their associated uncertainties. Based on these considerations and the judgments identified here, the Administrator reaches the proposed conclusion that the current standards provide the requisite protection of public health with an adequate margin of safety, including protection of at-risk populations, such as people with asthma.
In reaching this proposed conclusion, the Administrator recognizes that in establishing primary standards under the Act that are requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, he is seeking to establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent than necessary for this purpose. The Act does not require that primary standards be set at a zero-risk level, but rather at a level that avoids unacceptable risks to public health. In this context, the Administrator's proposed conclusion is that the current standards provide the requisite protection and that more or less stringent standards would not be requisite.
More specifically, given the adverse effects reported to be associated with NO
The Administrator additionally recognizes that the uncertainties and limitations associated with the many aspects of the estimated relationships between respiratory morbidity and NO
Based on all of the above considerations, and consistent with CASAC advice, the Administrator reaches the proposed conclusion that it is appropriate to retain the current standards, without revision, in this review. He further proposes that the available evidence and information do not warrant the identification of potential alternative standards that provide a different degree of public health protection. In reaching these proposed conclusions, the Administrator recognizes that different public health policy judgments could lead to different conclusions regarding the extent to which the current standards protect the public health. Such judgments include those related to the appropriate degree of public health protection that should be afforded as well as the appropriate weight to be given to various aspects of the evidence and information, including how to consider uncertainties. Therefore, the Administrator solicits comment on his proposed conclusions regarding the public health protection provided by the current primary NO
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this action is a significant regulatory action. Accordingly, it was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. Because this rule does not propose to change the existing NAAQS for NO
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. There are no information collection requirements directly associated with a decision to retain a NAAQS without any revision under section 109 of the CAA and this action proposes to retain the current primary NO
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, this action proposes to retain, without revision, existing national standards for allowable concentrations of NO
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not change existing regulations. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, since Tribes are not obligated to adopt or implement any NAAQS. The Tribal Authority Rule gives Tribes the opportunity to develop and implement CAA programs such as the primary NO
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The health effects evidence and risk assessment information for this action, which focuses on children, people with asthma, and older adults, in addressing the at-risk populations, is summarized in section II.C.3 above and described in the ISA and PA, copies of which are in the public docket for this action.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The purpose of this notice is to propose to retain the current primary NO
This action does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in Section II. The action proposed in this notice is to retain without revision the existing primary NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen based on the Administrator's conclusion that the existing standards protect public health, including the health of sensitive groups, with an adequate margin of safety. The EPA expressly considered the available information regarding health effects among at-risk populations in reaching the proposed decision that the existing standards are requisite.
Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |