| Page Range | 39953-40065 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 40011 - Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 40008 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RECUVYRA; Affirmation | |
| 82 FR 39953 - Elevation of U.S. Cyber Command to a Unified Combatant Command | |
| 82 FR 40024 - Sunshine Act Meeting: Finance Committee. Postponed | |
| 82 FR 40058 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
| 82 FR 40026 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 40024 - Human Exploration and Operations Research Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 40010 - International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products; Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach To Establish an Acute Reference Dose; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 40009 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
| 82 FR 40025 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 39983 - Meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 39982 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39955 - Safety Zone; Marine Event Held in the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone | |
| 82 FR 39976 - Public Hearing for Reconsideration of the Final Determination of the Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles | |
| 82 FR 39993 - Notice of Intent To Establish Voluntary Criteria for Radon Credentialing Organizations | |
| 82 FR 39997 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 2288.03); Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 39985 - Hydrographic Services Review Panel Meeting | |
| 82 FR 40013 - Rental Assistance Demonstration: Notice of Increase in Cap and Rent Setting | |
| 82 FR 40003 - Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 40008 - Oncology Drugs for Companion Animals; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 39982 - Foreign-Trade Zone 119-Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; Opening of Comment Period on Submission Containing New Evidence | |
| 82 FR 39982 - Carton-Closing Staples From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
| 82 FR 40024 - Performance Review Board Membership | |
| 82 FR 39987 - Proposed Subsequent Arrangement | |
| 82 FR 39987 - Virginia Electric Power Company, Cushaw Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 39988 - Republic Transmission, LLC; Notice of Update to the Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 82 FR 39989 - WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Billy Creek Storage Field Abandonment Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 82 FR 39992 - Pomelo Connector, LLC, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Pomelo Connector Pipeline and South Texas Expansion Projects | |
| 82 FR 39988 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 39986 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 82 FR 40006 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Additional Criteria and Procedures for Classifying Over-the-Counter Drugs as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective and Not Misbranded | |
| 82 FR 40016 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Tribal Energy Development Capacity Program | |
| 82 FR 40018 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Program | |
| 82 FR 40015 - Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for Sierra Pacific Industries Forest Practices in the Klamath, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada Mountains, CA; Environmental Impact Statement | |
| 82 FR 40006 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Electronic Submission Process for Voluntary Allegations to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health | |
| 82 FR 40026 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 40057 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Ahmad Alkhald, aka Yassine Noure, aka Mohammed Nawar Mohammed Alqadhi, aka Mahmoud as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 40057 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Abu Yahya al-Iraqi, aka Ayad Hamed Mohal al-Jumail, aka Ayad Hammed Muhal Shuab, aka Abu-Yahya, aka Iyad Hamed Mahl al-Jumaily, aka Iyad al-Jumayli, aka Ayad Hamid al-Jumaili, aka Ayad al-Jumaili, aka Ayad Miuhammed Mahar, aka Ayad Muhammad Mahar, aka Ayad Hamed Mohl Aljamali, aka Ayad Hamed Mahal Joumily as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 40002 - Information Collection; General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Zero Burden Information Collection Reports | |
| 82 FR 40001 - Information Collection; Presolicitation Notice and Response | |
| 82 FR 40025 - International Product Change-ADPR 1 Contracts | |
| 82 FR 39998 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 40000 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 39984 - Groundfish Operational Assessment Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39977 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries Management Plan; Adjustments to the Pacific Sardine Harvest Guideline Control Rule | |
| 82 FR 39955 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Matanzas River, St. Augustine, FL | |
| 82 FR 39998 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10503-The Freedom State Bank, Freedom, Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 39999 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10491-Texas Community Bank, National Association; The Woodlands, Texas | |
| 82 FR 39999 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10417-American Eagle Savings Bank, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 40063 - Proposed Collection of Information: U.S. Treasury Auction Submitter Agreement | |
| 82 FR 40058 - Federal Transit Administration | |
| 82 FR 40063 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Fiduciary Statement in Support of Appointment | |
| 82 FR 40064 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Million Veteran Program Baseline and Lifestyle Surveys | |
| 82 FR 40064 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Veterans' Health Benefits Handbook Questionnaire | |
| 82 FR 40026 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Corporate Governance and Related Processes Similar to Those of the Nasdaq Exchanges | |
| 82 FR 40055 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change in Connection With the Name Change of Its Affiliate, From NYSE MKT LLC to NYSE American LLC | |
| 82 FR 40044 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, in Connection With the Proposed Merger of Its Wholly Owned Subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. With and Into the Exchange | |
| 82 FR 40051 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add Certain Rules Adopted in Connection With the Exchange's Transition to a Fully-Automated Cash Equities Market to the List of Minor Rule Violations in Rule 9217 of the Office Rules | |
| 82 FR 40051 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing Access Delay | |
| 82 FR 40050 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts | |
| 82 FR 40026 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts | |
| 82 FR 40019 - Cased Pencils From China | |
| 82 FR 39991 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 39957 - First-Class Package Service-Retail | |
| 82 FR 39980 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the State | |
| 82 FR 39984 - Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction Meeting | |
| 82 FR 40012 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 40024 - Change in Postal Rates | |
| 82 FR 39966 - Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications | |
| 82 FR 39986 - Technical Guidelines Development Committee | |
| 82 FR 40012 - National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Meetings; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 40011 - National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Meetings; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 40013 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 40013 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39999 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10028-National Bank of Commerce, Berkeley, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 39985 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Cooperative Charting Programs | |
| 82 FR 40003 - Draft-National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing | |
| 82 FR 40021 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 40020 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
| 82 FR 40005 - Advancing the Development of Pediatric Therapeutics: Application of “Big Data” to Pediatric Safety Studies; Public Workshop | |
| 82 FR 40018 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for BNI Coal Ltd.'s Coal Lease-by-Application NDM-102083, Oliver County, ND, Notice of Public Hearing, and Request for Comment on Environmental Assessment, Maximum Economic Recovery, and Fair Market Value | |
| 82 FR 39980 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 40065 - Voluntary Service National Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 40020 - Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, Remote Control Devices, and Components Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Motion for Termination of the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 82 FR 40021 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
| 82 FR 39999 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 39981 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 39971 - Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials | |
| 82 FR 39974 - Eligibility for Supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance | |
| 82 FR 39972 - Safety Zone; Mississippi River; New Orleans, LA |
Economic Analysis Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Fiscal 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule and vertical clearance that governs the Crescent Beach Bridge (SR 206) across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Matanzas River), mile 788.6, at St. Augustine, Florida. The temporary deviation is necessary to complete rehabilitation work on the bridge. This temporary deviation allows the bridge single-leaf operations on a schedule with an advanced notice for a double-leaf opening and a two foot reduction in the vertical clearance of the bridge. This action is intended to allow for the contractor to conduct necessary rehabilitation work on the bascule spans with little to no effect on navigation.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from August 23, 2017 through 4 p.m. on November 30, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 17, 2017 at 7 a.m. until August 23, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0781 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email LT Allan Storm, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division; telephone 904-714-7616, email
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule and a vertical clearance reduction that governs the Crescent Beach Bridge (SR 206), Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Matanzas River), mile 788.6, St. Augustine, Florida. The bridge is a double leaf bascule bridge with a 20 foot vertical clearance in the closed position.
The deviation period is from 7 a.m. on August 17, 2017 to 4 p.m. on November 30, 2017. During this period, the bridge is allowed single leaf operations on a twice an hour schedule and with a two hour notice for a double leaf opening with a two foot reduction in the vertical clearance on the closed position. From 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, the bridge will open on the hour and half hour. The vertical clearance will be reduced to 18 feet for the duration of the deviation period.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule and vertical clearance for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for a fireworks display within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Long Island Sound (LIS) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within the limited access area is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP LIS.
This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on August 31, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Amber Arnold, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4583, email
This rulemaking establishes a safety zone for the Pvro Engineering Inc. fireworks display. The Pyro Engineering Inc. fireworks display is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A safety zone was established for this event in 2016 via a temporary final rule
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The event sponsor was late in submitting the scheduling details of the event. This late submission did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the event takes place. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish the safety zone by August 31, 2017. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run is also contrary to the public interest as it would inhibit the Coast Guard's mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP LIS has determined that the safety zone established by this temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways before, during and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a safety zone for a fireworks display that will take place on August 31, 2017, with a rain date of September 1, 2017 from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The location of the safety zone includes all waters of Great Peconic Bay, Southampton, NY in approximate position 40°55′00″ N., 072°27′31″ W. (NAD 83).
This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone and restricts vessel movement around the location of the fireworks display to reduce the safety risks associated with it during the period of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of the safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The enforcement of the safety zone will be relatively short in duration; (2) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP LIS or a designated representative; (3) the safety zone is designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic, permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterway not designated as a safety zone; and (4) the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to increase public awareness of this safety 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 regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Orders 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
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for Categorically Excluded Actions will be available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into or movement within the zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Long Island Sound.
(3) Any vessel given permission to deviate from these regulations must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
(4) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
(5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service
Karen Key at (202) 268-7492, Jacqueline Erwin at (202) 268-2158, or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
On July 20, 2017, the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) conditionally approved the Postal Service's request to transfer First-Class Mail Parcels, a market-dominant retail product for lightweight parcels, to the competitive product list. The PRC's approval was conditioned on the subsequent proposal, review, and approval of prices for the transferred product.
On July 28, 2017, pursuant to Governors' Decision 16-9, the Postal Service filed a notice of price change seeking to implement new prices and a name change for First-Class Mail Parcels. On August 9, 2017, the Commission approved the new prices and name change.
First-Class Mail Parcels will be renamed First-Class Package Service—Retail and will continue to be available at retail with the same service and content restrictions.
Additionally, the existing single-piece First-Class Package Service price
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail cannot exceed 13 ounces.
First-Class Package Service—Retail parcels are eligible for USPS Tracking and Signature Confirmation service. A First-Class Package Service—Retail parcel is:
d. A mailpiece that does not exceed 108 inches in combined length and girth.
Each single-piece price First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail piece must have a delivery address but is not required to bear a price marking.
The single-piece prices are applied as follows:
d. The First-Class Package Service—Retail parcel price applies to parcel-size pieces under 101.3.0 and to flat-size pieces that do not meet the standards in 101.2.0.
First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail prices are charged per ounce or fraction thereof; any fraction of an ounce is considered a whole ounce. * * *
Keys and identification devices (such as identification cards and uncovered identification tags) that weigh 13 ounces or less may be returned at the applicable single-piece First-Class Mail Flats price plus the fee. * * *
First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail receive expeditious handling and transportation. The USPS does not guarantee the delivery of First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail within a specified time.
First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail are sealed against postal inspection.
The price of First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail include forwarding service to a new address for up to 12 months and return service if the mailpiece is undeliverable.
First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service—Retail are the only products eligible to receive the following extra services: Registered Mail services and Certified Mail services. * * *
With the exception of restricted material as described in 601.8.0, any mailable item may be mailed as First-Class Mail and First Class-Package Service—Retail.
Bills and statements of account must be mailed as First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, or Priority Mail Express and are defined as follows:
Mail containing personal information must be mailed as First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, or Priority Mail Express. Personal information is any information specific to the addressee.
Mail containing handwritten or typewritten material must be mailed as First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, or Priority Mail Express.
All First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail are subject to limitations for air transportation in 601.9.0.
Postage for single-piece First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail must be paid with affixed postage stamps (604.1.0), postage evidencing system postage (604.4.0), or precanceled stamps (604.3.0).
When two or more individuals or organizations, or a party acting as their agent, mail in one package the bills, statements of account, or other letters of the individuals or organizations, to an addressee in common, First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail postage may be paid on the weight of the entire package of aggregated mail. Postage is not required on each individual piece.
An individual or organization may mail in one package more than one of the mailer's own letters and pay First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail postage on the weight of the entire package of letters if: * * *
Any agent of a licensing authority may forward completed applications in one envelope to an office of the licensing authority and pay First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail postage on the weight of the piece.
The following standards apply to single-piece First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail:
a. Each piece of First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail must have a delivery address, but is not required to bear a price marking.
b. There are no sorting requirements for single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail, but five or more letter-size pieces bearing metered postage must be faced with the addresses in one direction and bundled. Bundling of letter-size pieces is not required if they fill a letter tray.
Single-piece First-Class Mail letters and cards and First-Class Package Service—Retail may be deposited into any collection box, mail receptacle, or at any place where mail is accepted if the full required postage is paid with adhesive stamps. Metered mail must be deposited in locations under the jurisdiction of the licensing Post Office, except as permitted under 604.4.0.
* * * Incomplete copies (for example, those lacking pages or parts of pages) are subject to the applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services prices.
* * * Other mailings of back issues or reprint copies, including permanently bound back issues or reprint copies, are subject to the applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services prices.
* * * Postage at the applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, USPS Marketing Mail, or Package Services prices must be paid while the application is pending.
* * * No record is kept of postage paid at First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service—Commercial, prices or of postage not paid by advance deposit account. Records are kept for single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail price mailings that may qualify for a refund under the exception in 5.3.6e.
No refund is made for:
e. Postage paid at Priority Mail Express or First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service—Commercial, prices. Exception: When postage is deposited at single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail prices because a mailing presorted and prepared as Periodicals mail is less than 200 pieces or 50 pounds, a refund may be authorized.
* * * These copies are subject to the appropriate Priority Mail Express, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, Priority Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services price.
* * * That portion is subject to the appropriate Priority Mail Express, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, Priority Mail, USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services price.
* * * Until approval is given, postage must be paid at the Outside-County prices (for authorized Periodicals publications), or at the First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, USPS Marketing Mail, or Package Services prices (if the publication is in a pending status for Periodicals mailing privileges).
* * * No record is kept if First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service—Commercial, postage is paid or if postage is not paid by advance deposit account.
No refund is made for:
f. Postage paid at Priority Mail Express, First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail prices.
The single-piece First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services price is charged on copies of publications mailed by the general public and on copies returned to publishers or news agents.
* * * The First-Class Mail, Mail First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service—Commercial, USPS Marketing Mail, Parcel Select, or USPS Retail Ground price must be paid on all copies mailed by the public or by a printer to a publisher. * * *
* * * Weighted fee equals single-piece First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail price multiplied by 2.472.
Pieces prepared as USPS Marketing Mail (
Mailers who have pieces weighing 13 ounces or less that do not qualify for USPS Marketing Mail prices but that are prepared as USPS Marketing Mail must pay single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail postage for such pieces. If mailers do not desire to receive First-Class Mail service for such pieces they may enter the mailpieces “as is” (
b. Mail bearing metered or precanceled stamp postage must pay the difference between the postage affixed at the USPS Marketing Mail prices and the single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail prices by means of an advance deposit account or by affixing a meter stamp for the appropriate amount to Form 3600-R. * * *
c. Mail bearing permit imprints must pay the appropriate single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail prices by completing Form 3600-R. * * *
* * * The following additional standards apply to insured mail:
e. First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, and Priority Mail pieces may be insured, if they contain matter that is eligible to be mailed at USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services prices.
The following types of mail may not be insured:
e. Matter mailed at First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail prices that consists of items required to be mailed at First-Class Mail prices.
Unless sent Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service, special handling-fragile is required for parcels containing honeybees or baby poultry.
For basic BRM, a permit holder is required to pay an annual permit fee as provided under 1.2 and a per-piece fee under 1.1.7 in addition to the applicable Retail First-Class Mail (metered for letters), First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail postage for each returned piece.
Business Reply Mail (BRM) service enables a permit holder to receive First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, and Priority Mail back from customers. The permit holder guarantees payment of the applicable Retail First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail postage, plus a per piece fee, on all returned BRM which includes any incomplete, blank, or empty BRM cards and envelopes and any mailable matter with a BRM label affixed. * * *
Mail with extra services is treated according to the charts for each class of mail in 1.5, except that:
a. Undeliverable-as-addressed Certified Mail is treated as First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service—Retail.
b. All insured First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, and Priority Mail, pieces are forwarded and returned at no additional charge. All insured USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail
Undeliverable-as-addressed First-Class Mail (including postcards), First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, and Priority Mail pieces are treated under Exhibit 1.5.1, with these additional conditions:
b. * * * Undeliverable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, or Priority Mail pieces with any alternative addressing format are returned with the reason for nondelivery attached, only if the address is incorrect or incomplete or the mail is undeliverable for another reason as shown in Exhibit 1.4.1; however, if such mail is endorsed Change Service Requested, piece is disposed of and an ACS record is provided for the same reasons.
d. First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, or Priority Mail pieces bearing USPS Marketing Mail markings and endorsements under 202 and 244.5.1 for letters, flats, and parcels, receives forwarding, return, and address correction services for USPS Marketing Mail under 1.5.3.
e. “Change Service Requested” is not permitted for the following:
2. First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, or Priority Mail pieces containing hazardous materials under 601.8.0.
3. First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, or Priority Mail pieces with an extra service other than USPS Tracking or Signature Confirmation.
f. Address Change Service under 4.0 is available for First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, and Priority Mail pieces with the ACS participant code for an authorized ACS participant and a valid ancillary service endorsement. Mailers participating in OneCode ACS under 4.2.6 may print an Intelligent Mail barcode on First-Class Mail automation letters instead of a participant code and endorsement. The only endorsements permitted on First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, and Priority Mail valid ACS pieces are “Address Service Requested”, “Change Service Requested” or “Electronic Service Requested” subject to the following:
The following restrictions apply:
1. This endorsement is limited to use on valid mailpieces bearing a proper ACS participant code and only for:
(b) First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, and First-Class Package Service (excluding hazardous materials).
Undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) Periodicals publications (including publications pending Periodicals authorization) are treated as described in Exhibit 1.5.2, with these additional conditions:
e. * * * Each returned piece is charged the single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail price for the weight and shape of the piece, and the letter-size nonmachinable surcharge if applicable, or the Priority Mail price for the weight and destination of the piece. * * *
Piece returned with reason for nondelivery attached (only return postage charged at single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail price or Priority Mail single-piece price, as appropriate for weight of piece).
After 60-day period: Piece returned with new address or reason for nondelivery attached (in either case, only return postage charged at single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail price or Priority Mail single-piece price, as appropriate for weight of piece).
Undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) USPS Marketing Mail and Parcel Select Lightweight pieces are treated as described in Exhibit 1.5.3, with these additional conditions:
h. A returned piece endorsed “Return Service Requested” is charged the applicable single-piece First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail price for the weight and shape of the piece, and the nonmachinable surcharge if applicable, or the Priority Mail price for the weight and destination of the piece.
Parcel returned with reason for nondelivery attached; postage due charged as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package
Piece returned with reason for nondelivery attached; postage due charged as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel. Separate notice provided (electronic ACS fee is charged).
Months 1 through 12: Parcel forwarded. Forwarding postage is charged to the mailer as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel. Separate notice of new address provided (electronic ACS fee charged).
Piece returned with reason for nondelivery attached; postage due charged as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel. Separate notice provided (electronic ACS fee is charged).
Months 1 through 12: Parcel forwarded. Forwarding postage is charged to the mailer as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel. Separate notice of new address provided (electronic ACS fee charged).
Months 13 through 18: Parcel returned with new address attached; return postage is charged to mailer as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel. Separate notice of new address provided (electronic ACS fee is charged).
After month 18: Parcel returned with reason for nondelivery; return postage is charged to mailer as follows: At applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel. Separate notice of reason for nondelivery provided (electronic ACS fee is charged).
Months 1 through 12: Piece forwarded (no charge to addressee); separate ACS notice of new address provided (ACS address correction fee and forwarding postage charged at single-piece First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price, as appropriate for weight of piece, via mailer's ACS participant code).
* * * In either case, only return postage is charged at First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price, as appropriate for weight of piece.
* * * In either case, both the address correction fee is charged, and return postage is charged at First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price, as appropriate for weight of piece.
Months 1 through 12: Parcel forwarded; postage due charged to the mailer as follows; at applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail single-piece price for the weight of the parcel; separate notice of new address provided (electronic ACS fee charged).
Mailpieces sent as Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service that cannot be delivered as addressed or forwarded to a new address, unless otherwise requested by the sender, are returned to the sender at no additional charge. Excluding pieces containing live animals, the following are disposed of by the USPS:
b. First-Class Mail First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service pieces with a valid ACS participant code and endorsed “Change Service Requested.”
* * * The disposition of dead mail items is as follows:
e. Except for unendorsed USPS Marketing Mail, undeliverable USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, Package Services, and insured First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or First-Class Package Service pieces containing USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, or Package Services enclosures, that cannot be returned because of an incorrect, incomplete, illegible, or missing return address is opened and examined to identify the sender or addressee.
All Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class
When rural delivery service is established or changed, a customer of any office receiving mail from the rural carrier of another office may have all Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, Periodicals, USPS Retail Ground, and Package Services pieces forwarded to the latter office for delivery without added charge, if the customer files a written request with the postmaster at the former office.
All Priority Mail Express, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, Periodicals, USPS Retail Ground, and Package Services mailpieces addressed to persons in the U.S. Armed Forces (including civilian employees) serving where U.S. mail service operates is forwarded at no added charge when the change of address is caused by official orders. * * *
Priority Mail, First-Class Mail (including postcards), First-Class Package Service—Retail, and First-Class Package Service mailpieces are forwarded without charge when postage is fully prepaid by the sender.
* * * Shipper Paid Forwarding/Return (under 4.2.9) provides mailers of USPS Marketing Mail and Parcel Select Lightweight parcels an option of paying forwarding postage on those parcels, or return postage if undeliverable, at the applicable single-piece First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail price, instead of the addressee paying postage due charges. * * *
When possible, “on-piece” address correction is provided for Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, USPS Marketing Mail, USPS Retail Ground, Package Services, and Parcel Select pieces. * * *
Except under 5.1.3, Package Intercept service is available for Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, Parcel Select, USPS Retail Ground, Bound Printed Matter, Media Mail, or Library Mail mailpieces with a tracking barcode, addressed to, from, or between domestic destinations (608.2.0) that do not require a customs declarations label, and measuring not more than 108 inches in length and girth combined. * * *
Customers must pay a nonrefundable per-piece fee once the USPS successfully intercepts the mailpiece. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, and First-Class Package Service—Retail, pieces being redirected to the sender are not relabeled or subject to additional postage. * * *
* * * Incidental amounts of other postage-affixed, full-price mail also may be collected when Pickup on Demand service is provided for:
c. First-Class Package Service—Retail.
In delivery of the mail to the CMRA, the addressee and the CMRA agree that:
b. * * * At the end of the 6-month remail period the CMRA may return to the Post Office only First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, Priority Mail Express, accountable mail, or USPS Retail Ground received for the former addressee (customer). * * *
c. * * * Upon approval, the CMRA may return to the Post Office only First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, Priority Mail Express, accountable mail, and USPS Retail Ground received for the former customer. * * *
* * * Regardless of any mailer's ancillary service endorsement on a mailpiece, and provided it fits within the shipment container, all mail is included in the weekly Priority Mail shipment, except as follows:
b. Mailpieces that do not fit in the shipment container, or that require a scan or signature at delivery, are scanned (when applicable) and then rerouted separately to the temporary address, subject to the following:
1. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service pieces and Periodicals parcels are rerouted separately at no additional charge.
d. Any mailpiece arriving postage due at the Post Office serving a customer`s primary address is not included in the weekly Priority Mail shipment and will be rerouted separately as follows:
1. First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, and Priority Mail pieces are charged only for the original postage due amount.
Only the authorized recipient (or legal agent) of the business' (or organization's) mail may activate the request for PFS-Commercial service. PFS-Commercial service is subject to these conditions:
e. Except under 7.3.3g, the following products may be included in a PFS-Commercial service container: Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, and First-Class Package Service pieces.
All mail not bearing a simplified address must bear a delivery address that contains at least the following elements in this order from the top line:
e. ZIP Code where required:
2. Unless required above, ZIP Codes may be omitted from single-piece price First-Class Mail (including Priority Mail), First-Class Package Service—Retail, USPS Retail Ground, and pieces bearing a simplified address.
* * * The mailer must choose one of the following options for each DAL mailing and the items:
d. * * * Additional material must be sent prepaid to the delivery Post Office as First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, or Priority Mail Express.
Postage for excess or undeliverable DALs that are properly endorsed or for items being returned is computed at the single-piece price (First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, Priority Mail, or Package Services) applicable to the combined weight of the DAL and the accompanying item, regardless of whether both are returned. * * *
* * * The mailing date format used in the indicia is also subject to the following conditions:
a. Complete Date. Mailers must use a complete date for the following:
1. All Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, and First-Class Package Service pieces.
Mailers must deposit or enter mailpieces with metered or PC Postage indicia according to the following conditions:
a. Mailers may deposit Priority Mail Express, Flat Rate Priority Mail, Priority Mail weighing one pound or less, single-piece price First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, single-piece price Media Mail, and single-piece price Library Mail items with a metered or PC Postage indicia at any postal facility, preferably within the area of the customer's local Post Office. * * *
Mail with insufficient postage that is refused by the addressee or otherwise undeliverable is:
b. Returned to the sender and delivered when the sender pays the total deficient postage and additional postage for forwarding or return if other than First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail, and with a return address.
If shortpaid Registered Mail is found in ordinary mail, with only the First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail, price of postage paid, the piece is delivered to the addressee as ordinary First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail. * * *
If there is a distribution of pieces to some, but not all, addresses on a route, pieces are returned to the delivery unit for use in computing the postage due. First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail prices are applied to matter that would require First-Class Mail or First-Class Package Service—Retail postage if mailed. For other matter, if the piece weighs less than 16 ounces, the applicable single-piece First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail price based on the weight of the piece is applied, or USPS Retail Ground or an applicable Package Services price is applied, whichever is lower. If the piece weighs 16 ounces or more, the USPS
A full refund (100%) may be made when:
l. If a First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, First-Class Package Service, USPS Retail Ground or Package Services mailpiece is torn or defaced during USPS handling so that the addressee or intended delivery point cannot be identified. * * *
File claims as follows:
b.
Mail Type or Service
APO/FPO/DPO Insured Mail and registered Mail (Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, SAM, or PAL)
While an application, or confirmation of authorization, is pending postage must be paid at applicable First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail prices, or at applicable USPS Marketing Mail prices. The USPS records the difference between postage paid at regular USPS Marketing Mail prices and the postage that would have been paid at Nonprofit USPS Marketing Mail prices. No record is kept if postage is paid at First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail prices.
* * * No refund is made:
b. If postage was paid at First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service—Retail, or Priority Mail prices.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, by eliminating several rules that are either duplicative of other reporting requirements or are simply no longer necessary, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) streamlines the annual reporting requirements for eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that receive high-cost universal service support. The Commission also re-emphasizes the importance of providing the public with access to non-confidential information filed by ETCs, and it directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to work closely with state and Tribal governments and other stakeholders to improve public access to the information that ETCs will continue to file.
Effective September 22, 2017.
Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58; FCC 17-87, adopted on July 6, 2017 and released on July 7, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or at the following Internet address:
1. In this Report and Order, by eliminating several rules that are either duplicative of other reporting requirements or are simply no longer necessary, the Commission streamlines the annual reporting requirements for eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that receive high-cost universal service support. The Commission also re-emphasizes the importance of providing the public with access to non-confidential information filed by ETCs, and it directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to work closely with state and Tribal governments and other stakeholders to improve public access to the information that ETCs will continue to file. In doing so, the Commission reduces ETCs' regulatory burdens while strengthening the tools for program oversight in furtherance of its goal of protecting the high cost universal support program against waste, fraud, and abuse.
2.
3.
4. Most commenters support eliminating this duplicative requirement. The Commission disagrees with those commenters that suggest that reporting this information imposes no additional costs on carriers. Even if a carrier has information on outages readily available, preparing and submitting duplicative documentation entails costs. The Commission also disagrees with suggestions that, because some states have deregulated telecommunications services in their states, the Commission should retain certain federal reporting requirements. Because carriers already have a federal obligation to file this information through NORS, the Commission finds it inappropriate to continue to require carriers to incur additional costs solely to provide states with this information directly where the Commission has determined it is unnecessary for its own high-cost universal service oversight. To the extent that state agencies want network outage information for their own purposes, they can, and some do, obtain such information through their own mechanisms.
5.
6. Most commenters support this outcome. As with the other reporting requirements the Commission is eliminating, and for the same reasons, the Commission disagrees with those commenters that argue that reporting this information imposes no additional costs and that the Commission should continue collecting this information for the use of state commissions. In the
7.
8. Most commenters support elimination of this duplicative requirement. Again, the Commission disagrees with commenters who argue that reporting this information entails no additional costs, and that the Commission should continue collecting this information for the use of state commissions. One commenter expresses support for clarifying terms to make the information more useful; however, the Commission finds that its existing collection of detailed information from consumer complaints filed with CGB is sufficient for its oversight purposes.
9.
10. As a practical matter, the Commission has not made sufficient use of this pricing data to support its continued collection. The Commission primarily relies on the urban rate survey to develop annually the reasonable comparability benchmarks for both voice and broadband services, and annual certifications from providers that their rates do not exceed those benchmarks. The Commission therefore concludes that the public interest would be served by discontinuing this particular information collection.
11. Most commenters support removing this reporting requirement. The Commission disagrees again with commenters arguing that reporting this information requires no additional costs, and that the Commission should continue collecting this information for the use of state commissions. One commenter suggests that carriers only report what is needed to show compliance with the “reasonable comparability” benchmark; as noted above, the Commission finds that it already requires submission of what is needed to show compliance with that benchmark through the urban rate survey and annual certifications.
12.
13. Commenters generally support eliminating this requirement. For the same reasons as stated above, the Commission again disagrees with commenters suggesting that providing this certification would not entail any additional costs, and that the Commission should continue collecting these certifications for states' own oversight purposes.
14.
15. Only two states and no Tribal governments raised concerns regarding this proposal. Those commenters argue that it would be burdensome for states to actively seek ETCs' reported information from USAC. As others note, it is likely less burdensome for a state commission to log onto USAC's system and access carriers' reports than for ETCs, especially small companies, to submit their reports to the commissions in states in which they operate. Nonetheless, in light of state commenters' concerns, the Commission directs USAC to work with states and Tribal governments to facilitate their access to carriers' submitted data. Other commenters generally express support for removing the duplicate filing requirement, although several commenters expressed some concern about access to ETCs' confidential data provided through USAC's new online system. However, as the Commission explained in the
16. At this time, the Commission declines to eliminate any other ETC reporting requirements. Other information the Commission requires ETCs to report is necessary to enable it to fulfill its oversight responsibilities and to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Notwithstanding, the Commission will continue to evaluate its reporting requirements to identify other requirements that the Commission may be able to streamline or eliminate at a future point.
17. This document contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In this present document, the Commission has assessed the effects that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) below.
18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
19. In this Report and Order, the Commission streamlines the annual reporting requirements for eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that receive high-cost universal service support by eliminating several rules that are either duplicative of other reporting requirements or are simply no longer necessary. The Commission also reinforces the importance of providing the public with access to non-confidential information filed by ETCs and direct the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to work closely with state and Tribal governments and other stakeholders to improve public access to the information that ETCs will continue to file. In doing so, the Commission reduces ETCs' regulatory burden while strengthening the tools for program oversight in furtherance of its goal of protecting the high cost universal support program against waste, fraud, and abuse.
20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
21.
22. The Report and Order does not impose any specific reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for entities, including small entities. Instead, by removing certain reporting requirements, the Report and Order streamlines existing reporting requirements. In particular, the Report and Order eliminates ETCs' obligations to report (1) network outage information; (2) unfulfilled service requests; (3) the number of complaints received by an ETC per 1,000 subscribers for both voice and broadband services; and (4) pricing for voice and broadband services. The Report and Order also eliminates the requirement that an ETC certify its compliance with applicable service quality standards and consumer protection rules, as well as the requirement that ETCs must file duplicate copies of Form 481 with the FCC and with states, U.S. Territories, and/or Tribal governments.
23. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The Commission has considered all of these factors subsequent to receiving substantive comments from the public and potentially affected entities. The Commission has considered the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the
24. In the
25. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
26. Accordingly,
27.
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, Internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
(a) Any recipient of high-cost support shall provide the following:
(1) Certification that the carrier is able to function in emergency situations as set forth in § 54.202(a)(2);
(2) A certification that the pricing of the company's voice services is no more than two standard deviations above the applicable national average urban rate for voice service, as specified in the most recent public notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau;
(3) A certification that the pricing of a service that meets the Commission's
(4) The recipient's holding company, operating companies, affiliates, and any branding (a “dba,” or “doing-business-as company” or brand designation), as well as universal service identifiers for each such entity by Study Area Codes, as that term is used by the Administrator. For purposes of this paragraph, “affiliates” has the meaning set forth in section 3(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended;
(5) To the extent the recipient serves Tribal lands, documents or information demonstrating that the ETC had discussions with Tribal governments that, at a minimum, included:
(i) A needs assessment and deployment planning with a focus on Tribal community anchor institutions;
(ii) Feasibility and sustainability planning;
(iii) Marketing services in a culturally sensitive manner;
(iv) Rights of way processes, land use permitting, facilities siting, environmental and cultural preservation review processes; and
(v) Compliance with Tribal business and licensing requirements. Tribal business and licensing requirements include business practice licenses that Tribal and non-Tribal business entities, whether located on or off Tribal lands, must obtain upon application to the relevant Tribal government office or division to conduct any business or trade, or deliver any goods or services to the Tribes, Tribal members, or Tribal lands. These include certificates of public convenience and necessity, Tribal business licenses, master licenses, and other related forms of Tribal government licensure.
(6) The results of network performance tests pursuant to the methodology and in the format determined by the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Office of Engineering and Technology.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking from Matthew McKinley on behalf of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) (the Petitioner) dated April 14, 2017, requesting that the NRC revise its regulations to add radionuclides and their corresponding activities to the list of “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling.” The petition was docketed by the NRC on June 21, 2017, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-30-66. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-30-66 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comment on this petition.
Submit comments by November 6, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Robert MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0159 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0159 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The membership of OAS consists of state radiation control directors and staff from the 37 Agreement States who are responsible for the implementation of their respective Agreement State programs. The purpose of the OAS is to provide a mechanism for the Agreement States to work with each other and with the NRC on regulatory issues associated with their respective agreements.
The petitioner request that the NRC amend its existing regulations in appendix B to part 30 of title 10 of the
The petitioner believe that patient health and safety is being compromised due to licensing delays of important diagnostic and therapeutic products that utilize radioisotopes that are not listed in the appendix B table in 10 CFR part 30. The petitioner assert that when the Energy Policy Act was amended in 2005 to include discrete naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials (NARM) into the definition of byproduct material, that 10 CFR part 30, schedule B, exempt quantities for licensing was updated to include certain NARM isotopes. They note however that 10 CFR part 30, appendix B, “Quantities of Licensed Material Requiring Labeling,” which is the driver for the decommissioning funding plan and financial assurance, was not updated. As a result, the OAS believes that state regulators are forced to apply overly burdensome financial assurance obligations or evaluate on a case-by-case basis special exemptions for new products. They feel that this results in delays in using these improved products or discourages their development.
The petitioner point out that the NRC's Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes evaluated the financial assurance requirements for germanium-68 generators and concluded that these requirements were too restrictive and would prevent or deter the use of promising gallium-68 diagnostic imaging agents for patients. Authorization for granting specific exemption from the decommissioning funding plan requirement for Ge-68/Ga-68 generators was developed. A rulemaking action to provide a permanent regulatory solution has been initiated; however, the petition notes that the OAS is disappointed that the rule would address only this one isotope.
Rather than issue exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the petitioner assert the more appropriate way to address the inconsistency is to amend appendix B to 10 CFR part 30 to add appropriate radionuclides and their corresponding activities. The petition states that the failure to address this inconsistency puts an undue hardship on certain licensees with little or no radiation safety benefit, discourages the development of new beneficial products, and negatively impacts patient care.
The NRC staff is requesting public comment on the following specific questions:
1. What products or technologies, other than the germanium-68 generators cited in the petition, are being or could be negatively affected because the radioactive materials required for these products or technologies are not currently listed on the table in appendix B of 10 CFR part 30?
2. Please provide specific examples of how the current NRC regulatory framework for decommissioning financial assurance has put an undue hardship on potential license applicants. Explain how this hardship has discouraged the development of beneficial new products, or otherwise imposed unnecessarily burdensome requirements on licensees or members of the public (
3. Given NRC's current regulatory authority over the radiological safety and security of NARM, what factors should the NRC take into account in establishing possession limits for any of these materials that should be listed in appendix B of 10 CFR part 30?
4. Does this petition raise other issues not addressed by the questions above about labelling or decommissioning financial assurance for radioactive materials? Must these issues be addressed by a rulemaking, or are there other regulatory solutions that NRC should consider?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Mississippi River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display on October 28, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 7, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0731 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, at (504) 365-2281 or
On July 17, 2017, the Coast Guard was notified of a fireworks display from 7:50 p.m. through 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017, to celebrate a wedding. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Mississippi River at approximately MM 96.2, at New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-half range of the barge.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-half mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7:50 p.m. through 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between mile marker (MM) 96 and 96.5 on the Mississippi River, Above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour for a small section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.
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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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
This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 1 hour that would prohibit entry within one-half mile of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its regulations governing the Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance (S-DVI) program in order to explain that a person who was granted S-DVI as of the date of death under is not eligible for supplemental S-DVI because the insured's total disability did not begin after the date of the insured's application for insurance and while the insurance was in force under premium-paying conditions.
Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted through
Paul Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4263 (this is not a toll-free number).
Under 38 U.S.C. 1922(a), a veteran “suffering from a disability or disabilities for which compensation would be payable if 10 per centum or more in degree and except for which such person would be insurable according to the standards of good health” is eligible for S-DVI up to a maximum of $10,000 upon “application in writing made within two years from the date service-connection of such disability is determined by the Secretary and payment of premiums as provided in this subchapter.” See 38 U.S.C. 1903 (amount of insurance). Section 1922(b) of title 38, United States Code, provides in pertinent part that a veteran who qualifies for insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922(a) but who did not apply for such insurance and who was mentally incompetent from a service-connected disability, remained mentally incompetent until the date of death, and died before the appointment of a guardian or within 2 years after the appointment of a guardian “shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been granted such insurance, as of the date of death.” See 38 U.S.C. 1922(b). VA refers to insurance provided under 38 U.S.C 1922(b) as “gratuitous” insurance.
“Any person insured under section 1922(a) [of title 38, United States Code,] who qualifies for a waiver of [S-DVI] premiums under [38 U.S.C.] 1912 . . . is eligible” for supplemental S-DVI of up to $30,000. 38 U.S.C. 1922A(a). Section 1912(a) of title 38, United States Code, states in pertinent part:
[P]ayment of premiums on insurance may be waived during the continuous total disability of the insured . . . if such disability began . . . after the date of the
In
VA proposes to add section 8.34 to title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, which would codify the last two
VA's proposed regulation would promote the continued viability of the S-DVI program. The S-DVI program is not self-supporting because S-DVI insureds pay standard premium rates which account for age but not their disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. 1922(a) (computation of premium rates). As a result, the S-DVI program requires an annual subsidy from the U.S. Treasury. VA's budget submission for FY 2017 requested an appropriation of $77.6 million. VA estimates that, if veterans' beneficiaries were entitled to receive both gratuitous S-DVI and supplemental S-DVI for which no premiums were paid due to the death of the insured, the costs to the S-DVI program would increase by more than $1 million per year.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this rulemaking, would represent VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures would be authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance would be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
This action contains no provision constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521); no new or proposed revised collections of information would be associated with this proposed rule.
The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would directly affect only individuals and would not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 15, 2017, for publication.
Life insurance, Veterans.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 8 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1901-1929, 1981-1988, unless otherwise noted.
A person who is granted Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922(b) is not eligible for supplemental Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance under 38 U.S.C. 1922A.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Announcement of public hearing.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public hearing to be held in Washington, DC on September 6, 2017 for the notice “Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final Determination of the Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles; Request for Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards” announced August 10, 2017 and projected to be published on August 21, 2017. In the document signed on August 10, 2017, EPA announced that it is reconsidering whether the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards previously established for model years 2022-2025 are appropriate under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act and invited stakeholders to submit any comments, data, and information they believe are relevant to the Administrator's reconsideration of the January 2017 Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination and in particular, highlight any new information. EPA also requested comment on the separate question of whether the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards established for model year 2021 remain appropriate, regardless of the agency's decision on the Mid-term Evaluation.
The public hearing will be held on September 6, 2017, at the location noted below under
The hearing will be held at the following location: Renaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel, 999 Ninth Street NW., Washington, DC, USA, 20001 (phone number 202-898-9000). A complete set of documents related to the Mid-term Evaluation are available for public inspection through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: Hearing
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide the public an opportunity to present oral comments related to the notice “Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final Determination of the Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles; Request for Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards” projected to be published on August 21, 2017. Once EPA learns how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony. For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for no more than five minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if there is a large turnout. We request that you bring two copies of your statement or other material for the EPA panel.
EPA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record for the notice open until the close of the comment period to allow speakers to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter. Panel members may ask clarifying questions during the oral statements but will not respond to the statements at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Written comments must be received by the last day of the comment period.
You may learn more about the Mid-term Evaluation by visiting EPA's Web site
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
Under the framework procedures of the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), NMFS proposes to revise the FRACTION parameter of the Pacific sardine harvest guideline (HG) control rule to use a 3-year average of ocean temperature data from the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) survey that takes place off southern and central California, rather than temperatures measured from the end of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) Pier, and revise the upper bound of fraction from 15 percent to 20 percent. These changes are intended to better reflect the best available science and to better conserve and manage the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine off the U.S. West Coast managed under the CPS FMP.
Comments must be received by September 22, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0044 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.
The HG control rule, in conjunction with the overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules in the FMP, are used to set annual harvest levels for the northern subpopulation of Pacific sardine (hereafter, simply Pacific sardine), in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
Since 1999, the formula prescribed in the FMP used for calculating FRACTION has been based on an average 3-year sea surface temperature measured at the SIO Pier and an estimate of the relationship between Pacific sardine E
In 2010, new research by scientists at the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) called into question the original relationship between SIO temperature and productivity used in the analysis to establish the existing FRACTION parameter and control rule in the FMP. In February 2013, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the SWFSC convened a workshop to further examine the temperature-recruitment relationship used to inform FRACTION. The scientists at this workshop found that although a temperature-recruitment correlation based on SIO was still scientifically valid, a temperature index based on data from the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) survey (a compilation of temperatures measured throughout the southern California bight, from now on referred to as CalCOFI index) explained a more significant amount of sardine recruitment variability and success than the SIO index and was generally better aligned with ocean temperatures in the primary habitat of Pacific sardine (PFMC 2013).
Based on this new information, and a recommendation from their Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) that the CalCOFI index represented the best available science for Pacific sardine management, the Council adopted the use of the CalCOFI temperature index and a new temperature-recruitment relationship as follows:
As a result of further analyses presented to the Council on the use of the CalCOFI index to calculate FRACTION, the Council, at their November 2014 meeting, adopted and recommended to NMFS, and NMFS is proposing through this action, that the HG control rule be modified in the FMP so that the CalCOFI index and revised E
Adjusting the upper bound of FRACTION from 15 percent to 20 percent is an attempt to scale the bounds on FRACTION to better reflect the mid-range of actual temperature readings observed in the CalCOFI data, thereby aligning the CalCOFI temperatures and the new temperature-E
Additionally this revision mirrors an increase in the modeled stochastic estimate of MSY for Pacific sardine from 0.12 during the analysis for Amendment 8 to 0.18 (PFMC 1999 and PFMC 2014; Hurtado-Ferro and A. E. Punt.) when based on the updated analysis and the new simulation model developed to examine this action (Hurtado-Ferro and Punt 2013). This increase in the modeled stochastic MSY estimate reflects a statistically identified increase in the understanding of sardine productivity and the ability of the stock to withstand a higher average fishing rate. Additionally, results from the simulation model developed to examine the risks associated with the control rule and an assessment of changing to a new temperature recruit index showed that bounding FRACTION at 15 percent compared to 20 percent did not provide substantial benefits to the sardine stock from a long-term population perspective or benefits to the ecosystem with regards to the amount of sardine left unharvested as potential forage for predators. However, increasing the upper bound to 20 percent is expected to result in a higher yield to the fishery over the long term.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an EO 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under EO 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
The purpose of this rule is to use the best available science for calculating the FRACTION parameter in the Pacific sardine HG control rule under the CPS FMP and this is expected to result, over the long term, in harvest guidelines of a similar level to the status quo, except the sardine stock should be more robust, over the long term, because the control rule would use better science. This is accomplished by incorporating the use of a new temperature index into the calculation that more accurately tracks sardine productivity and by revising the upper FRACTION bound to 20 percent.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that harvest Pacific sardine as part of the West Coast CPS finfish fleet and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards. In 2014, there were approximately 81 vessels permitted to operate in the directed sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast: 58 vessels in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39° N. lat.), and a combined 23 vessels in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2014 for the West Coast CPS finfish fleet was well below $20.5 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA.
The proposed action is not expected to have direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts, and, therefore, it is not expected to reduce profitability of the affected entities. This action does not establish specific harvest limits and does not change the general function of the existing control rule, both of which might influence ex-vessel revenue and personal income. Instead, the proposed action only updates the environmental indicator underlying the FRACTION parameter of the HG control rule and modifies the control rule to reflect this new information. In general, the revised harvest control rule encompassing these changes is expected to produce similar quotas as the existing control rule.
The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to calculate annual harvest levels by applying the harvest control rule formulas, such as the HG rule, to the current stock
Based on the analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
The complete citations for the references cited in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 22, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Revisions were made to the Prices Paid Surveys and the Prices Received Survey for Grain. The Prices Paid Surveys will now collect both the price of the commodities listed, as well as the quantity sold. This will allow NASS to generate a weighted average price, instead of a straight average price for farm inputs. The Prices Received for Grain survey will be expanded to include all 50 States. This change is in response to additional funding provided by Congress to enhance the livestock feed expenses for all 50 States.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Louisiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, September 5, 2017; and Friday, September 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Central for a discussion on civil rights topics affecting the state.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 5, 2017; and Friday, September 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Central.
•
•
David Barreras, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
The Department of Commerce (DOC) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
A survey questionnaire with a cover letter that includes a brief description of, and rationale for, the survey will be sent to potential respondents by September of 2017, 2018, and 2019. A report of the respondent's expenditures of the NIH award amounts following the proposed format for expenditure categories attached to the survey's cover letter, will be requested to be returned no later than December 8, which in most years will be approximately 120 days after mailing. Survey respondents will be selected on the basis of award levels, which determine the weight of the respondent in the biomedical research and development price index. BEA proposes to survey 150 organizations that receive NIH biomedical research awards. This will include the top 100 organizations in total awards received; 40 additional organizations that are not primarily in the “Research and Development (R&D) contracts” category; and 10 additional organizations that are primarily in the “R&D contracts” category. Based on awards data for FY 2015 by type of organization, the top 100 organizations received $17.0 billion in awards (approximately 77 percent of total awards); the remaining awards-receiving organizations received $5.2 billion.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jessica Park, OMB Desk Officer, phone number (202) 395-9046, or via email at
The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board is inviting public comment on a submission containing new evidence pertaining to the application of The Coleman Company, Inc. (Coleman) requesting unrestricted production authority within Subzone 119I at the Coleman facility located in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. Specifically, the application requests unrestricted authority to produce personal flotation devices and flotation cushions using the following inputs in foreign status: Certain nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; knit polyester fleece fabrics; and, water soluble sensing elements.
On July 31, 2017, Coleman made a submission to the FTZ Board that included new evidence in response to the examiner's preliminary recommendation not to approve the unrestricted authority. Public comment is invited on Coleman's submission through September 22, 2017. Rebuttal comments may be submitted through the subsequent 15-day period, until October 10, 2017. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below.
A copy of Coleman's submission will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 7, 2017, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
1. Introductions and opening remarks by senior management.
2. Presentation on validated end-user.
3. Presentation on semiconductors and expansion of validated end-user.
4. Presentation by George Graveson, ODNI.
5. Open session report by regime representatives.
6. Report by working groups (composite, pumps and valves, bio, public domain, chemicals).
7. Update on plans for 2018/Public Comments/New Business/Close session.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 23, 2017.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
On April 20, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of carton-closing staples from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190
On August 10, 2017, the petitioner submitted a timely request that the Department postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation. The petitioner stated that it requests postponement to permit the Department to address all issues arising in this investigation, which has been affected by extensions for filings and anticipated future filings of information required to make a preliminary determination.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee (CINTAC).
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 5, 2017, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The deadline for members of the public to register to participate, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 30, 2017.
The meeting will be held via conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register to participate (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: Mr. Devin Horne, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
Mr. Devin Horne, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, International Trade Administration, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. (Phone: 202-482-0775; Fax: 202-482-5665; email:
Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Mr. Devin Horne at the contact information above by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 30, 2017 in order to pre-register to participate. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill.
A limited amount of time will be available for brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two (2) minutes per person, with a total public comment period of 20 minutes. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Horne and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments and the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 30, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, ITA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers.
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the CINTAC's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 28018, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. For consideration during the meeting, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 30, 2017. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of CINTAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR or Committee), will hold a meeting via webinar on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Interested members of the public will be able to view the meeting materials and participate from remote locations. The primary purpose of this meeting is to review and finalize the Committee's 2017 Report on the Effectiveness of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at
The ACEHR will hold a meeting via webinar on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public.
Questions regarding the meeting should be sent to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604. For instructions on how to participate in the meeting via the webinar, please see the
Tina Faecke, Management and Program Analyst, NEHRP, Engineering Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. She can also be contacted by email at
The Committee was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 103 of the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-360). The Committee is currently composed of 15 members appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected for their established records of distinguished service in their professional community, their knowledge of issues affecting NEHRP, and to reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines, competencies, and communities involved in earthquake hazards reduction. In addition, the Chairperson of the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee serves as an ex-officio member of the Committee.
The Committee assesses:
• Trends and developments in the science and engineering of earthquake hazards reduction;
• the effectiveness of NEHRP in performing its statutory activities;
• any need to revise NEHRP; and
• the management, coordination, implementation, and activities of NEHRP.
Background information on NEHRP and the Advisory Committee is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the ACEHR will hold an open meeting via webinar on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of this meeting is to review and finalize the Committee's 2017 Report on the Effectiveness of the NEHRP. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the NEHRP Web site at
All participants in the meeting are required to pre-register. Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday, August 30, 2017. Please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Tina Faecke at
Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated, and those who were unable to participate are invited to submit written statements to NEHRP, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, or electronically by email to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS and the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) will convene a peer review of Operational Stock Assessments of twenty fish stocks. These stocks are managed by the New England Fishery Management Council and are included within the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This will be a formal, scientific peer review of operational assessments, which incorporate recent data. Results of the review will be used as a basis for management decisions for fish stocks in U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by stock assessment scientists primarily from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and reviewed by a panel of stock assessment experts. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions by reviewers and scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.
The public portion of the Stock Assessment Review Committee Meeting will be held from September 11, 2017, through September 15, 2017. The meeting will commence on September 11, 2017, at 9 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please see
The meeting will be held in the S.H. Clark Conference Room in the Aquarium Building of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.
Sheena Steiner, 508-495-2177; email:
For further information, please visit the NEFSC Web site at
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Sheena Steiner at the NEFSC, 508-495-2177, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Matt Kroll, (240) 533-0063 or
This request is for an extension of a current information collection. The U.S. Power Squadrons and the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary members report observations of changes that require additions, corrections or revisions to Nautical Charts. The information provided is used by NOAA, National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey to maintain and prepare chart additions that are used Nationwide by commercial and recreational navigators.
Submissions are made via the Internet.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) will hold a public meeting. Public comments are requested in advance or during the meeting. Information about the HSRP meeting, agenda, presentations, webinar, and background documents will be posted online at:
The meeting will be held September 11-13, 2017. The agenda and times are subject to change. For updates, please check online as noted above.
Lynne Mersfelder-Lewis, HSRP Program Manager, National Ocean Service, Office of Coast Survey, NOAA (N/NSD), 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3 #6305, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone: 301-533-0064; email:
The meeting is open to the public, seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis, and public comment is encouraged. Public comment periods are scheduled each day and noted in the
U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is hereby given that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's (EAC) Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) will meet in open session on Monday, September 11, 2017 and Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in Silver Spring, MD.
The meeting will be held on Monday, September 11, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, and Tuesday, September 12, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern time (estimated based on speed of business).
The meeting will take place at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East West Highway (First Floor Conference Room), Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301) 563-3919.
Members of the public may submit relevant written statements to the TGDC with respect to the meeting no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 5, 2017. Statements may be sent via email at
The TGDC was established in accordance with the requirements of Section 221, of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-252, codified at 42 U.S.C 15361), to act in the public interest to assist the Executive Director of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in the development of voluntary voting system guidelines. Details regarding the TGDC's activities are available at
This meeting will be open to the public.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to OMB for an extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program, OMB Control Number 1910-5112. This information collection request covers the information from DOE and DOE contractors that are subject to the Department's “Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.” The regulations contained in the Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program have been promulgated under authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Department of Energy Organization Act.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before September 22, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to Bill McArthur, U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Health, Safety and Security, AU-11; 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (301) 903-9674, by fax at 301-903-7773, or by email at:
Request for additional information should be directed to Bill McArthur, U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Health, Safety and Security, AU-11; 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (301) 903-9674, by fax at 301-903-7773, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2201, and the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7191 and 7254.
Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement.
This document is being issued under the authority of section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the United States of America and the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than September 7, 2017.
Mr. Richard Goorevich, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-0589 or email:
This subsequent arrangement concerns a request for a four-year extension (April 2017 to April 2021) of the current programmatic approval for retransfer of U.S. obligated irradiated fuel rods between Studsvik Nuclear AB, Sweden, and Institutt for Energiteknikk, IFE facilities Halden and Kjeller, Norway. The rods are being transferred for irradiation service, various tests, and examinations, and will be returned to Studsvik Nuclear, Sweden, for further test and final disposal. The total shipping amounts will be the same as allowed under the current approval—a maximum of 30,000 grams uranium, 400 grams U-235 and 400 grams plutonium in all shipments, combined, with a maximum of 100 grams of plutonium per shipment.
The current extension was approved in January 2014 and published in the
In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of the United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States of America.
For the Department of Energy.
On June 30, 2017, Virginia Electric Power Company (transferor) and Cushaw Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license for the Cushaw Hydroelectric Project No. 906, from the transferor to the transferee. The project is located on the James River in Bedford and Amherst counties, Virginia. The project occupies Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Cushaw Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the transferee.
Take notice that on August 15, 2017, Republic Transmission, LLC (Republic) filed an update to its March 22, 2017 Petition for Declaratory Order for Incentive Rate Treatment, as more fully explained in the update to its petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability 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:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Billy Creek Storage Field Abandonment Project involving construction and operation of facilities by WBI Energy Transmission, Inc (WBI) in Johnson County, Wyoming. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before September 18, 2017.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on June 30, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP17-469-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
WBI provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17-469-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
WBI proposes to abandon the Billy Creek Storage Field (Storage Field) and related facilities and recover and sell the Storage Field's cushion gas in Johnson County, Wyoming. WBI proposes to withdraw an estimated 2.4 billion cubic feet of cushion gas prior to abandonment of the Storage Field. Based on initial drawdown conditions, WBI proposes one method, or a combination of any of the following methods, to recover the remaining cushion gas:
• Utilize and/or modify existing storage facilities (Option 1);
• install a 200 horsepower (or less) replacement compressor unit (Option 2);
• drill one new natural gas recovery well in one of two proposed locations (Option 3); or
• a combination of any of these methods.
Following cushion gas withdrawal, WBI would abandon pipeline and aboveground facilities in-place or by removal, including the additional compressor unit or recovery well required in Options 2 and 3. WBI states that the Storage Field is no longer reliable due to water encroachment and that the firm storage deliverability previously provided by the Storage Field is now provided by another WBI storage field.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Abandonment of the Storage Field through Options 1 or 2 would temporarily disturb approximately 11.7 acres. After withdrawal of the 2.4 billion cubic feet of cushion gas, WBI would restore all 11.7 acres. Option 3 would temporarily disturb an additional 3 or 4.2 acres, depending on which location is selected for well installation. The total temporary disturbance for Option 3 would be either 14.7 or 15.9 acres, of which the entirety would be restored and no land would be required following abandonment.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• endangered and threatened species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We may also distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 1).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the Document-less Intervention Guide under the e-filing link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On May 22, 2015 and December 30, 2016 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application and supplements/amendments in Docket No. CP15-499-000/CP15-499-001 and Pomelo Connector, LLC (Pomelo) filed an application on December 22, 2016 in Docket No. CP17-26-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon, construct, modify, and operate gas pipeline facilities in Texas. Pomelo's project known as the Pomelo Connector Pipeline Project (Pomelo Connector Pipeline) would provide up to 400,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service from an interconnection with Texas Eastern at the proposed Pomelo Petronila Compressor Station in Nueces County, Texas, to the Nueces Header pipeline system. Texas Eastern's project, known as the South Texas Expansion Project (STEP), would provide approximately 396,000 Dth/d of firm natural gas transportation service to an interconnection with the Nueces Header. Collectively, the STEP and Pomelo Connector Pipeline projects are referred to as the Projects.
On June 5, 2015, and January 4, 2017 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Applications for the Projects. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Projects. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Projects.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Pomelo Connector Pipeline consists of construction and operation of approximately 14 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline, a new 5,000 horsepower (hp) compressor station, approximately 0.2 mile of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline, and associated aboveground facilities in Nueces County, Texas. Pomelo would engage in certain construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment activities under blanket construction certificate authorization, and abandon all of the capacity of the Pomelo Connector Pipeline upon the in-service date by lease to Texas Eastern. STEP consists of construction and operation of a new 8,400 hp gas turbine unit in Nueces County, Texas; piping modifications at its existing Angleton Station property in Brazoria County, Texas; a new 8,400 hp gas turbine unit at its existing Blessing Compressor Station in Matagorda County, Texas; clean burn emission work and piping modifications at its existing Mont Belvieu Compressor Station in Chambers County, Texas; and piping modifications at its existing Vidor Compressor Station in Orange County, Texas.
On April 6, 2017, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; opening of a 60-day public comment period.
Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has administered a statutorily-mandated program under the Indoor Radon Abatement Act to reduce exposure to indoor radon by promoting awareness, testing, installation of radon mitigation systems in existing homes, and use of radon-resistant new construction techniques. EPA works with state programs, industry and the public to reduce human exposure to radon and thereby reduce deaths due to lung cancer. Access to quality service providers responsible for measuring indoor radon levels and conducting mitigation when necessary is essential to this mission. Historically, EPA operated a program, the Radon Proficiency Program (RPP), to identify qualified radon service providers, a service to assist consumers and states receiving indoor radon grants. Upon its discontinuation, two organizations qualified to be designated as responsible parties for credentialing radon service providers in the absence of a state-run process established under a state's regulatory requirements. Since that time, there has not been an ongoing and open evaluation process for organizations wanting to credential radon service providers. As the Federal agency responsible for implementing the national radon program, and in response to the needs of our state and private partners, EPA intends to establish voluntary criteria outlining a standard of competence for organizations that credential radon service providers. This notice provides interested parties with an opportunity to provide feedback on the Agency's proposed approach.
Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Katrin Kral, Indoor Environments Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 6609T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; 202-343-9454;
This notice is directed to stakeholders working to reduce exposure to indoor radon. It may, however, be of particular interest to those involved with promoting and/or conducting testing and installation of radon mitigation systems, including, but not limited to:
• Organizations credentialing radon service providers and other building construction and/or maintenance related providers.
• Radon service providers.
• Organizations who provide third-party accreditation to the ISO/IEC 17024:2012.
• Organizations representing state health and environmental programs, green building initiatives, and the radon services industry.
• State radon programs.
• Federal agencies who own, influence or control housing.
1.
• Identify the notice by docket number, subject heading,
• Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by including a specific reference.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced.
• Illustrate your concerns with specific examples 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.
To learn more, please visit
The 1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act (See Toxic Substances Control Act,
In February 1986, EPA established the Radon Measurement Proficiency (RMP) Program to assist consumers in identifying organizations capable of providing reliable radon measurement analysis services. The Radon Contractor Proficiency (RCP) Program was established in 1989 to evaluate the proficiency of radon mitigators in residences and provide information to the public on proficient mitigators. In 1994, EPA began working to consolidate the RMP and RCP into one streamlined program to better meet industry needs and reduce costs. The consolidated program officially became the Radon Proficiency Program (RPP) in October 1995.
In response to stakeholder feedback as part of the RPP development-process, the Agency also began investigating the feasibility of transitioning oversight of the proficiency program away from EPA. The Agency tasked the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) with drafting a document containing the necessary components of a proficiency program. As part of this effort, a series of stakeholder meetings were held in 1997. Feedback was collected in five key areas critical to discontinuation of the EPA's RPP: (1) Radon tester; (2) radon mitigator; (3) approval and accreditation requirements for radon and radon decay product measurement devices, radon chambers, and radon laboratories; (4) the operational board and committees; and (5) the transition to private proficiency programs.
Ultimately, CRCPD developed a final document outlining a plan for transitioning oversight of the proficiency program outside of the Federal government, entitled: “Criteria for Certification of Radon Service Providers, the Accreditation of Radon Chambers and Laboratories, and the Approval of Measurement Devices.” This plan was used to conduct a one-time evaluation and identify two organizations that sufficiently addressed components of EPA's RPP in the early 2000s. These two organizations—the National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP; initially affiliated with the National Environmental Health Association and currently affiliated with the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists, or AARST) and the National Radon Safety Board (NRSB)—became responsible for credentialing radon service providers in the absence of a state run process established under a state's regulatory requirements. This service assisted consumers by identifying qualified radon providers. In addition, it assisted states receiving indoor radon grants, which are required to maintain and make available a list of qualified service providers to the public. Since the discontinuation of the RPP, the Agency has relied on NRPP, NRSB and state run certification programs to provide the national proficiency platform in the radon marketplace.
Taken together, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113), Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (OMB A-119) and Guidance on Federal Conformity Assessment (15 CFR part 287) direct Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) wherever possible as the basis of regulation and other programs, to participate in the development of VCS, and to coordinate conformity assessment activities (testing, certification, etc.) with the private sector to avoid duplication. OMB A-119 outlines considerations Federal agencies should make when addressing the need for conformity assessment, and considerations agencies should take into account when designing conformity assessment programs.
Personnel certification has become an important element of verifying the competence of an increasingly mobile and global workforce. In response to this growing need, a joint technical committee of the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission (the ISO/IEC) developed an international standard to establish uniform procedures for certifying the competence of personnel in different occupations or professions. The ISO/IEC 17024:2012 standard is designed to help ensure that personnel certification programs run by credentialing organizations (also referred to as a certifying body) operate in a consistent, comparable, impartial and reliable manner. In addition to ensuring the validity of individual certification programs, the ISO/IEC standard is intended to help ensure competence and quality of a workforce and promote consumer and public confidence. Key areas addressed in the standard include: The structure and governance of the certifying body and the characteristics of the certification program as it relates specifically to a job type (
To verify compliance with ISO/IEC standard 17024:2012, credentialing organizations may seek accreditation from a third party. An organization accredited by a third party demonstrates ongoing compliance with a set of business standards and the necessary core competencies to perform the certification of persons and/or training functions. As a requirement of continuous accreditation recognition, an organization must demonstrate ongoing compliance with ISO/IEC standard 17024:2012 by periodically maintaining accreditation.
Radon exposure causes approximately 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year and is the leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. Many state programs and private industry stakeholders have, for years, asserted their belief that EPA should maintain a standard of competence for organizations credentialing radon service providers that reflect current industry standards and best practices. There is no current formal process to assess quality and competence of organizations wanting to credential radon service providers. The Agency believes it is necessary to establish an ongoing and open evaluation process moving forward and anticipates that it will take two to four years to establish a process and ensure ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement. Criteria establishing a standard of competence for organizations credentialing radon service provides will help ensure continued and sustained access to a qualified workforce.
EPA recently issued a special term and condition to SIRG grantees clarifying guidance in the State and
(1) An existing state-run process established under a state's regulatory requirements for credentialing radon service providers (
(2) one of the two currently-recognized national radon proficiency programs (
The term and condition will remain in effect until the Agency issues voluntary criteria, at which time, states receiving SIRG funding would list only those radon service providers credentialed by organizations meeting the criteria.
While all comments regarding any aspect related to the development of voluntary criteria for radon credentialing organizations are welcomed, comments on the following key areas are specifically requested.
While EPA cannot require that radon credentialing bodies take any particular action in order to conduct business, EPA does have authority to require that states receiving indoor radon grants list only providers who meet certain standards of competence. By establishing criteria for organizations credentialing radon service providers, EPA would help states ensure high-quality radon services are available to their citizens. States receiving SIRG funding would be required to list only radon service providers who are certified by organizations meeting these criteria (possibly including state-run credentialing programs).
To satisfy the criteria, organizations that credential radon service providers would need to demonstrate and maintain compliance with ISO/IEC standard 17024:2012 through independent, third party accreditation. The voluntary criteria would specify a timeframe for organizations to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17024:2012 through third party accreditation.
As a condition of continuous accreditation recognition, an organization would need to demonstrate ongoing compliance with ISO/IEC 17024:2012 by periodically reapplying and earning accreditation.
Credentialing organizations accredited to ISO/IEC 17024:2012 have to ensure that certificate holders meet requirements outlined in the certification scheme. The credentialing organization may use recertification to bring those who do not meet the current requirements into compliance. In this case, recertification may be required for service providers previously credentialed by one of the two national credentialing organizations.
EPA is seeking comments on the overall feasibility, appropriateness and potential impacts of these criteria, in particular as they relate to: Time-frame for demonstrating compliance through third-party accreditation and options for a phased-in approach, maintaining continuous accreditation, and recertification as a means to bring existing certificate holders into compliance.
Currently, approximately twenty-three states have regulatory requirements in place for credentialing of radon service providers and implement a process accordingly (
EPA is seeking comments on the feasibility, appropriateness and potential impacts of requiring states that operate independent programs (
Organizations providing independent, third party accreditation may be required to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 17011:2004 as a signatory of the International Accreditation Forum's Multilateral Recognition Agreement, or MRA.
EPA is seeking feedback on the value of including conditions for organizations providing independent, third party accreditation.
To help reduce the burden to credentialing organizations seeking accreditation to the ISO/IEC 17024:2012 and to standardize competency and testing requirements for radon service providers, EPA recognizes that there may be value in the Agency supporting development of the certification scheme, a requirement of ISO/IEC 17024:2012. It should be noted that the choice of what role EPA plays ultimately will depend on both what the community needs and what resources the Agency can sustainably support.
EPA is seeking comments on the feasibility, appropriateness, and potential impacts of each possible scenario presented below:
(a) EPA develops basic framework for credentialing organizations to follow.
EPA would define parameters for the certification scheme (
Credentialing organizations might enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA committing to develop and maintain a certification scheme in compliance with specified parameters.
(b) EPA supports development of initial certification scheme.
EPA would support development of the initial certification scheme and then would transfer ownership of the scheme to a third party or individual credentialing organization(s) after a specified time-frame (
(c) EPA supports development and maintenance of certification scheme.
EPA would retain ownership of the certification scheme, including development and maintenance. Organizations seeking accreditation to ISO/IEC 17024:2012 might enter into a licensing agreement with the Agency which would specify requirements for use of the certification scheme.
EPA's RPP addressed labs and devices in addition to radon testing and mitigation service providers. The proposed approach outlined above does not directly address labs and devices. If the Agency were to address labs, a different ISO/IEC standard would apply
EPA is seeking comments on the proposed scope for this effort, including the planned approach for including devices. Comments are also welcomed on job titles and scopes that should be included for radon testing and mitigation providers.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and provides an opportunity for public comment. The ICR, entitled: “Pesticide Data Call-in Program” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2288.03 and OMB Control No. 2070-0174, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0109, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Cameo Smoot, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5454, mail address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
There are no capital investment or maintenance and operational costs associated with this collection.
There is an increase of 353,146 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is a result of the program implementing new methodologies to calculate respondent burden, the inclusion of a new IC group—
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 23, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
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 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 Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission,
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the mandatory Quarterly Savings and Loan Holding Company Report (FR 2320; OMB No. 7100-0345).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
The Board also has determined that data items C572, C573, and C574 (line items 24, 25, and 26) may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Commercial or financial information may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 if disclosure of such information is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the provider of the information. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The data items listed above pertain to new or changed pledges, or capital stock of any subsidiary savings association that secures short-term or long-term debt or other borrowings of the SLHC; changes to any class of securities of the SLHC or any of its subsidiaries that would negatively impact investors; and defaults of the SLHC or any of its subsidiaries during the quarter. Disclosure of this type of information is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the SLHC providing the information and thus this information may be protected from disclosure under FOIA exemption 4.
With regard to the remaining data items on the FR 2320, the Board has determined that institutions may request confidential treatment for any FR 2320 data item or for all FR 2320 data items, and that confidential treatment will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning presolicitation notice and response.
Submit comments on or before October 23, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0037, Presolicitation Notice and Response, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB Control number 9000-0037. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0037, Presolicitation Notice and Response”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0037, Presolicitation Notice and Response” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr. Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-501-1448 or
Presolicitation notices are used by the Government for several reasons, one of which is to aid prospective contractors in submitting proposals without undue expenditure of effort, time, and money. The Government also uses the presolicitation notices to control printing and mailing costs. The presolicitation notice response is used to determine the number of solicitation documents needed and to assure that interested offerors receive the solicitation documents. The responses are placed in the contract file and referred to when solicitation documents are ready for mailing.
After mailing, the responses remain in the contract file and become a matter of record. The FAR sections affected are: 4.5; 14.205; 15.201(c) and 36.213-2. The responses are placed in the contract file and referred to when solicitation documents are ready for mailing. After mailing, the responses remain in the
We estimate that three respondents on average would reply to a presolicitation notice. Based on this info, we feel that the estimated respondents would number 23,856. We also estimate that each respondent on average would reply to three presolicitation notices a year. Time required to read and prepare information is estimated at 5 minutes per completion.
The burden has increased from the one in
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Zero Burden Information Collection Reports.
Submit comments on or before: October 23, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Dana Munson, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy, at telephone 202-357-9652 or via email to
This information requirement consists of reports that do not impose collection burdens upon the public. These collections require information which is already available to the public at large or that is routinely exchanged by firms during the normal course of business. A general control number for these collections decreases the amount of paperwork generated by the approval process.
GSA has a published rule in the
None.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for comments.
As steward of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the availability of the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing for public comment. Written by the NORA Manufacturing Sector Council, the Agenda identifies the most important occupational safety and health research needs for the next decade, 2016-2026. A copy of the draft Agenda is available at
Electronic or written comments must be received by October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0072 and docket number NIOSH-300, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Emily Novicki (
The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program created to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. The national agenda is developed and implemented through the NORA sector and cross-sector councils. Each council develops and maintains an agenda for its sector or cross-sector.
The National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing is intended to identify the research, information, and actions most urgently needed to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses in the manufacturing sector. The National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing provides a vehicle for industry stakeholders to describe the most relevant issues, gaps, and safety and health needs for the sector. Each NORA research agenda is meant to guide or promote high priority research efforts on a national level, conducted by various entities, including: Government, higher education, and the private sector. The first National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing was published in 2010 for the second decade of NORA (2006-2016). This draft is an updated agenda for the third decade of NORA (2016-2026). The revised agenda was developed considering new information about injuries and illnesses, the state of the science, and the probability that new information and approaches will make a difference.
As the steward of the NORA process, NIOSH invites comments on the draft National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing. A copy of the draft Agenda is available at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The public meeting will be held on September 28, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Tommy Douglas Conference Center, The Ballroom, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA Advisory Committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-4835. The docket will close on September 27, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by September 27, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 27, 2017. The
Comments received on or before September 14, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.
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
Moon Hee V. Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
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 special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Moon
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).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is announcing a public workshop entitled “Advancing the Development of Pediatric Therapeutics (ADEPT): Application of “Big Data” to Pediatric Safety Studies.” The purpose of this 2-day workshop is to understand how to access and analyze “Big Data” associated with safety information in the health care setting, and the utility and challenges associated with the use of “Big Data” to study the safety of therapeutics in children.
The public workshop will be held on September 18 and 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. See the
The public workshop will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville Rd. (Route 29), Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Renan A. Bonnel, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8654, Fax: 301-847-8640,
Large volumes of data in the context of the health care industry have the potential to provide additional information related to medication use, which may affect the benefit-risk assessment of medicines in general and pediatric medicines in particular. Since pediatric pharmacoepidemiologic studies tend to enroll fewer patients than adult studies, additional information may be needed to better understand the safety and efficacy of use of these drugs in children. “Big Data”, including forms of real world evidence that may involve large and complex data sets, may be particularly useful as a supplement to traditional studies. Supplementary information may include additional clinical trial data, registry data, and electronic health record information.
In this workshop, FDA will gather information on the latest developments in “Big Data” from the perspective of a number of stakeholders and expand the conversation to include the utility and challenges associated with the use of “Big Data” in the pediatric setting. Day 1 will focus on national and international uses of “Big Data” in health care. Day 2 will focus on “Big Data” utility in the pediatric setting, including specific challenges associated with pediatric data.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by August 22, 2017. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants.
Registration information, the agenda, and additional background materials can be found at
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Renan A. Bonnel (see
After the morning session, users will be automatically redirected to the afternoon link. Should you lose connection over lunch, please use the following link for the afternoon session (
After the morning session, users will be automatically redirected to the afternoon link. Should you lose connection over lunch, please use the following link for the afternoon session (
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 22, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection request collects information voluntarily submitted to Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) on actual or potential health risk concerns about a medical device or radiological product or its use. Because, prior to the establishment of the electronic submission process for voluntary allegations to CDRH, there had been no established guidelines or instructions on how to submit an allegation to CDRH, allegations often contained minimal information and were received via phone calls, emails, or conversationally. CDRH has established a consistent format and process for the submission of device allegations that enhances our timeliness in receiving, assessing, and evaluating voluntary allegations. The information provided in the allegations received by CDRH may be used to clarify the recurrence or emergence of significant device-related risks to the general public and the need to initiate educational outreach or regulatory action to minimize or mitigate identified risks.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 22, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Agency regulations. Specifically, FDA regulations at § 330.14 (21 CFR 330.14) establish additional criteria and procedures for classifying over-the-counter (OTC) drugs as generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded. These regulations state that
Based on our experience with submissions we have received under § 330.14, we estimate that we will receive two TEAs and two safety and effectiveness submissions each year, and that it will take approximately 1,525 hours to prepare a TEA and 2,350 hours to prepare a comprehensive safety and effectiveness submission. This information is reflected in rows 1 and 2 of table 1.
Recently FDA revised its regulations at 21 CFR part 330 (81 FR 84465, November 23, 2016), thus adding 6 hours to FDA's estimated annual reporting burden for the information collection. Specifically, § 330.14(j) clarifies the requirements on content and format criteria for a safety and effectiveness data submission, and provides procedures for FDA's review of the submissions and determination of whether a submission is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. Section 330.14(j)(3) describes the process for cases in which FDA refuses to file the safety and effectiveness data submission. Under § 330.14(j)(3), if FDA refuses to file the submission, the Agency will notify the sponsor in writing, state the reason(s) for the refusal, and provide the sponsor with 30 days in which to submit a written request for an informal conference with the Agency about whether the Agency should file the submission. We estimate that approximately one respondent will annually submit a request for an informal conference, and that preparing and submitting each request will take approximately 1 hour. This is reflected in row 3 of table 1.
Under § 330.14(j)(4)(iii), the safety and effectiveness data submission must contain a signed statement that the submission represents a complete safety and effectiveness data submission and that the submission includes all the safety and effectiveness data and information available to the sponsor at the time of the submission, whether positive or negative. We estimate that approximately two respondents annually will submit such signed statements, and that preparing and submitting each signed statement will take approximately 1 hour. This is reflected in row 4 of table 1.
Under § 330.14(k)(1), FDA, in response to a written request from a sponsor, may withdraw consideration of a TEA submitted under § 330.14(c) or a safety and effectiveness data submission submitted under § 330.14(f). We estimate that approximately one respondent will annually submit such a request, and that preparing and submitting the request will take approximately 1 hour. This is reflected in row 5 of table 1.
Under § 330.14(k)(2), a sponsor may request that FDA not withdraw consideration of a TEA or safety and effectiveness data submission. We estimate one respondent will annually submit such a request, and that preparing and submitting the request will take approximately 2 hours. This is reflected in row 6 of table 1.
In the
We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of affirmation.
August 23, 2017
Joyce Strong, Office of Policy, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9148.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is affirming the signature date for a notice that appeared in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry #237 entitled “Oncology Drugs for Companion Animals.” The guidance provides recommendations for sponsors of investigational oncology drugs for use in companion animals (
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time 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 the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Christopher Loss, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-116), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rm. N310, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0619,
In the
This level 1 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 oncology drugs for companion animals. 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.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 514.1 and 514.8 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (GFI) #232 entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose” (VICH GL54). This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH guidance document is intended to address the nature and types of data that can be useful in determining a toxicological acute reference dose (ARfD) for residues of veterinary drugs, the studies that may generate such data, and how the ARfD may be calculated based on these data.
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 the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Tong Zhou, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-153), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0826,
FDA is announcing the availability of GFI #232 entitled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose” (VICH GL54). In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop, with input from both regulatory and industry representatives, harmonized technical requirements for the registration or approval of pharmaceutical products for
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission and European Medicines Agency; International Federation for Animal Health—Europe; FDA; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Animal Health Institute; the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; and the Japanese Veterinary Products Association.
Six observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, one representative from the industry in Canada, one representative from the government of South Africa, and one representative from the industry in South Africa. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by HealthforAnimals.
In the
This VICH guidance document is intended to address the nature and types of data that can be useful in determining a toxicological ARfD for residues of veterinary drugs, the studies that may generate such data, and how the ARfD may be calculated based on these data.
This guidance, developed under the VICH process, is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose.” 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 is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Notice document 2017-17569, appearing on pages 39589 through 39590, in the issue of Monday, August 21, 2017, was published in error. It should be removed.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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.
Population Sciences Subcommittee, Population Sciences Committee.
Biobehavioral and Behavioral Sciences Subcommittee, Biobehavioral and Behavioral Subcommittee.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into NIH buildings. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice addresses the increase in the number of public housing units that may be awarded competitively under HUD's Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD). It serves as notification to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) that have submitted Letters of Interest (LOI) to reserve their position on the RAD waiting list that they are eligible for award under this expansion if they submit a complete RAD Application, Portfolio Award, or Multi-phase Award for the number of units identified in their LOI within 60 days of the publication of this notice. Awards are subject to existing eligibility and selection criteria; HUD is not changing such criteria with this notice. For CHAPs issued beyond the 185,000-
For PHAs that can be awarded as a result of the expansion, the 60-day period to submit complete RAD Applications, Portfolio Award, or Multi-phase Award for the number of units identified in their LOI in compliance with Section 1.9 of PIH 2012-32/H 2017-03 Rev-3 begins on the date of this publication in the
Interested persons are invited to submit questions or comments electronically to
To assure a timely response, please direct requests for further information electronically to the email address
On May 5, 2017, section 239 of Title II, Division K—Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31) (2017 Appropriations Act), amended the RAD statute, as authorized in Title II, Division C, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, (Pub. L. 112-55) by increasing the unit cap from 185,000 units to 225,000 units and extending the period for project applications until September 30, 2020 under the RAD First Component, which allows for the conversion of assistance under the public housing program to long-term, renewable assistance under Section 8.
On May 5, 2017, the 2017 Appropriations Act amended the RAD statute by increasing the unit cap from 185,000 units to 225,000 units and extending the period for project applications until September 30, 2020. Per the RAD statute, HUD must select properties from applications for conversion as part of RAD through a competitive process. HUD will use the existing waiting list. Awards are subject to existing eligibility or selection criteria; HUD is not changing such criteria with this notice. These criteria are described in the Rental Assistance Demonstration—Final Implementation, Revision 3 notice (PIH 2012-32 (HA) H 2017-03, REV-3) issued on January 12, 2017. This notice announces the following:
1. HUD is now able to award RAD authority to certain projects where PHAs have submitted LOI to reserve their position on the RAD waiting list and have also submitted a complete RAD Application, Portfolio Award request, or Multi-phase Award request for the number of units identified in their LOI within 60 days of the publication of this notice. By an email sent on or before the effective date of this notice, HUD will identify and notify each PHA that may submit an application or request for an award as a result of the expansion. Failure to make a complete submission for the reserved units (that is, submit a complete application or request) within 60 days of the publication of this notice will result in a forfeiture of the PHA's position on the waiting list.
2. HUD will fully allocate any remaining authority under the previously authorized 185,000-unit statutory cap to replace any withdrawn or revoked awards with new awards selected from the waiting list. HUD will use rent levels based on the FY14 RAD rent base year for replacement awards made under the 185,000-unit cap as a result of revocations or withdrawals that occurred prior to May 5, 2017. HUD will use rent levels based on the FY16 RAD rent base year for those CHAPs to be issued beyond the 185,000-unit cap (
3. For all Multi-phase Awards issued after May 5, 2017, PHAs will have until September 30, 2020, to submit an application for the final phase of the project covered by the Multi-phase Award. For any Multi-phase Awards issued prior to May 5, 2017, HUD may approve extensions up to September 30, 2020 on a case-by-case basis.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50, which implemented section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent and request for comments; notice of scoping meeting.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are advising the public that we intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposed Endangered Species Act incidental take permit (ITP) application from Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) for the federally threatened Northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl. The California spotted owl was recently petitioned for listing under the ESA. The activities to be covered would include timber harvest and timber management SPI conducts on its lands in the State of California. We are also announcing the initiation of a 30-day public scoping process to engage Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments; special interest groups; and the public in the identification of issues and concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternatives to the Service's Proposed Action.
• September 13, 2017—Hilltop Holiday Inn—Buckskin Room, 1900 Hilltop Drive, Redding, California, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
• September 14, 2017—Bonderson Building—Hearing Room, 901 P Street, Sacramento, California, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.
Pre-registration is required.
Additional information on the Service's proposed action is provided on the Internet at
Send written comments to the Field Supervisor, via one of the following methods:
•
•
Kim Turner, at 916-414-6606 (telephone) or
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
SPI owns and conducts forest practices on 1.6 million acres in the State of California. SPI is preparing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) in support of its ITP application under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B), to cover SPI's operations. The SPI HCP will be developed in accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA and 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1), 17.32(b)(1). SPI may elect to prepare a candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) for the California spotted owl, instead of including it in the HCP with the Northern spotted owl. If SPI pursues that direction, the CCAA will be developed in accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA and 50 CFR 17.22(d)(1), 17.32(d)(1). The activities to be covered under the SPI HCP and CCAA (if the latter is also prepared) include timber harvest and timber management in the State of California where ESA incidental take authorization may be needed.
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered under section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1538, 16 U.S.C. 1533). The ESA implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species (50 CFR 17.31). Under section 3 of the ESA, to “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
Under section 10 of the ESA, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of federally listed fish and wildlife species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as “take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.” To obtain an ITP from the Service, an applicant must submit an HCP to the Service that specifies (1) the impact which will likely result from the taking; (2) what steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; (3) what alternative actions to the taking the applicant considered and the reasons why the alternatives are not being utilized; and (4) other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the HCP. If we find, after opportunity for public comment, with respect to the permit application and the related HCP that (1) the taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate
The SPI HCP will encompass land within the State of California where SPI timber management operations occur. SPI currently manages about 1.6 million acres of timber land in the State of California. Activities to be covered by the proposed HCP include those necessary to manage and harvest timber land within the State of California. Covered activities also include development and management of mitigation measures and monitoring.
The SPI HCP will cover the federally listed Northern spotted owl and the unlisted California spotted owl. Both species are subject to injury or mortality during timber harvest operations and management activities.
Alternatively, the California Spotted owl will potentially be covered by a SPI CCAA, and the Northern spotted owl will be covered under the SPI HCP.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We will consider these comments in developing the draft EIS. We seek specific comments on:
1. Biological information and relevant data concerning covered species;
2. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of covered species;
3. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that implementation of the proposed covered activities could have on endangered, threatened, and other covered species, and their communities or habitats;
4. Other possible alternatives to the proposed action(s) that the Service should consider;
5. Other current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on covered species;
6. The presence of archaeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and
7. Any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed SPI HCP, and permit action(s).
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed above in the
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the EIS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office in Sacramento, California (see
See
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public meetings should contact the Service using one of the methods listed in
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA and per NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.5 and 1508.22).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 22, 2017.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mr. Chandler Allen by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Those who would like to submit a TEDC project proposal must submit an application that includes certain information and, once funding is received must submit reports on how they are using the funding. A complete application must contain the following:
• A formal signed resolution of the governing body of the Tribe or Tribal energy resource development organization demonstrating authority to apply;
• A proposal describing the planned activities and deliverable products; and
• A detailed budget estimate, including contracted personnel costs, travel estimates, data collection and analysis costs, and other expenses.
The project proposal must include the information about the Tribe or Tribal energy resource development organization sufficient to allow IEED to evaluate the proposal based on the following criteria:
(a) Energy resource potential;
(b) Applicant's energy resource development history and current status;
(c) Applicant's existing energy resource development capabilities;
(d) Demonstrated willingness of the applicant to establish and maintain an independent energy resource development business entity;
(e) Intent to develop and retain energy development capacity within the applicant's government or business entities; and
(f) Applicant commitment of staff, training, or monetary resources.
The IEED requires this information to ensure that it provides funding only to those projects that meet the goals of the TEDC and the purposes for which Congress provides the appropriations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 23, 2017.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mr. Les Jensen, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 3645, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mr. Les Jensen by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
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 ICR. 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.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), North Dakota Field Office (NDFO) is publishing this notice to announce that an Environmental Assessment (EA) for BNI Coal, Ltd.'s (BNI) Federal Coal Lease-by-Application
The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Written comments should be received no later than October 12, 2017.
The public hearing will be held at the Betty Hagel Memorial Civic Center, 312 N. Lincoln Ave., Center, North Dakota. In addition, copies of the EA are available at
•
•
Submitted comments related to the BNI EA, FMV, and MER for the tract will be available for public inspection at the NDFO address listed above.
Irma Nansel, Planning and Environmental Coordinator; telephone: 406-233-3653; or at the address and email provided in the
On November 7, 2014, BNI submitted an amended application to lease a 160-acre tract of Federal coal located in Oliver County, North Dakota. The BLM's EA analyzes and discloses the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of leasing and subsequent mining of the proposed 160-acre coal tract. The lease tract is located at the Center Mine and contains 2.43 million tons of in-place Federal coal resources. Due to adverse geologic conditions, BNI intends to mine approximately 1.69 million tons of coal from the tract. The tract underlies private surface and is described as follows:
The area described contains 160 acres.
Through this notice, the BLM is inviting the public to provide comments regarding the potential environmental impacts related to the proposed action, and also to submit comments on the FMV and the MER for the proposed LBA tract. All public comments, whether written or oral, will receive consideration prior to the BLM's decision regarding the leasing of the Federal coal contained in the tract.
Public comments on the EA should address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. Public comments on the FMV and MER for the proposed lease tract may address, but do not have to be limited to, the following:
1. The quality and quantity of the Federal coal resource;
2. The mining method or methods to be employed to obtain the MER of the coal, including the name of the coal bed(s) to be mined, timing and rate of production, restriction of mining, and the inclusion of the tracts in an existing mining operation;
3. The price that the mined coal would bring when sold;
4. Costs, including mining and reclamation costs, of producing the coal and the anticipated timing of production;
5. The percentage rate at which anticipated income streams should be discounted, either with inflation, or in the absence of inflation, in which case the anticipated rate of inflation should be given;
6. Depreciation, depletion, amortization, and other tax accounting factors; and
7. The value of any privately held mineral or surface estate in the Center Mine area.
Any proprietary information or data that you submit to the BLM must be marked as confidential to assure the data will be treated in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of such information or data. A copy of the comments submitted by the public on the EA, FMV, and MER for the tract, except those portions identified as proprietary and that meet one of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, will be available for public inspection at the BLM NDFO, at the address listed above, during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday.
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 public at any time. While you may request in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that this will occur.
40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR 3425.3, and 3425.4.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 35059) and determined on September 6, 2016 that it would conduct a full review (82 FR 12467, March 3, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on August 17, 2017. The
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Corrected Order No. 16) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting Complainants' motion for termination of the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. The investigation is terminated.
Houda Morad, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1041 on March 3, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Complainants OpenTV, Inc. of Mountain View, California; Nagra USA, Inc. of San Francisco, California; Nagravision SA of Cheseaux-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland; and Kudelski SA of Cheseaux-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland (collectively, “Complainants”).
On July 21, 2017, Complainants filed a motion for termination of the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. On July 26, 2017, the Commission Investigative Attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of Complainants' motion. Respondents did not oppose Complainants' motion. On August 11, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting Complainants' motion for termination of the investigation. The ALJ found that “Complainants have met the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), and [] that good cause exists to grant the unopposed motion to terminate this investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint.”
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On August 16, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the District Court of the Southern District of New York in a lawsuit entitled
In this action the United States seeks, as provided under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, recovery of response costs from three parties regarding the Port Refinery Superfund Site (“Site”) in the Village of Rye Brook, New York. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims and requires the Monroe Iron & Metal Co., Inc., Ocanna, Inc., and Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. to pay, in aggregate, $151,503 in reimbursement of the United States' past response costs regarding the Site.
The publication of this notice opens the public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $6.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On August 17, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
On July 27, 2015, the United States filed a complaint on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) alleging that Accolade Construction Group, Inc. (“Accolade”) violated the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (“RRP Rule”), promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Pursuant to the proposed consent decree, both Accolade and its principal Faisal Ahmed (“Ahmed,” and, collectively, with Accolade, the “Settling Accolade Parties”) agree to injunctive relief that, among other things, requires them, for the term of the consent decree, to (1) provide EPA with notice and a proposed RRP Rule compliance plan prior to doing any renovation work covered by the RRP; (2) provide EPA with notice of each proposed renovation project prior to engaging in that project; (3) comply with the RRP Rule, and (4) maintain necessary records. The Settling Accolade Parties also agree to pay $58,000 in disgorgement, representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint. The consent decree resolves any claims of the United States against Accolade or Ahmed for the violations of TSCA alleged in the Complaint through the date of lodging.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, notice is hereby given that the United States Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) proposes to establish a new Department-wide system of records titled, “Department of Justice Library Circulation System,” JUSTICE/DOJ-019.
This notice is applicable upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by September 22, 2017.
The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments by mail to the United States Department of Justice, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530-0001, by facsimile at 202-307-0693, or by email at
Paul F. Cantwell, Supervisory Librarian, Library Staff, Justice Management Division, 601 D Street NW., Room 7530, Washington, DC 20530, facsimile: 202-514-2785.
The DOJ Libraries offer legal and general reference and research services, resource acquisition services, cataloging services, and digitization services. DOJ Libraries provide access to extensive legal and non-legal print collections and online legal resources. DOJ provides library services primarily to the DOJ Offices, Boards, and Divisions. The Main Library located in the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building contains broad collections of congressional, legal, and general research materials. In addition, branch libraries support the DOJ litigating Divisions and maintain special collections of particular interest to Division personnel.
The DOJ Library Circulation System allows the Department's Library Staff to track the circulation of materials held by the various libraries within the Department, ensuring that library
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
Department of Justice Library Circulation System, JUSTICE/DOJ-019.
Unclassified.
Records will be maintained electronically at one or more of the Department's data centers, including, but not limited to, the Justice Data Center, Rockville, MD 20854, and/or at one or more of the Department's Core Enterprise Facilities (CEF), including, but not limited to, the Department's CEF East, Clarksburg, WV 26306, or CEF West, Pocatello, ID 83201. Records within this system of records may be transferred to a Department-authorized cloud service provider, in which records would be limited to locations within the Continental United States.
Access to these electronic records includes all locations at which the DOJ Library Staff operates or at which DOJ Library Staff operations are supported, including the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 5315, Washington, DC 20530. Some or all system information may also be duplicated at other locations where the Department has granted direct access to support DOJ Library Staff operations, system backup, emergency preparedness, and/or continuity of operations.
To determine the location of particular Library Circulation System records, contact the system manager, whose contact information is listed in the “SYSTEM MANAGER(S)” paragraph, below.
Director, Library Staff, Justice Management Division, Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 5315, Washington, DC 20530.
5 U.S.C. 301, 44 U.S.C. 3101, and 28 CFR 0.77(h).
The purpose of this system of records is to accurately track items currently checked out from the Department's libraries by registered users, and to ensure that all items are returned to the Department of Justice's libraries in a timely fashion and/or upon the departure from the Department of Justice by an employee who has borrowed materials from a Department library.
DOJ contractors and employees, including student interns and temporary employees, who register with the Department of Justice libraries to borrow materials from the libraries. Also covered are DOJ employees and contractors responsible for the operation and maintenance of the system.
Records include information on the library material(s) currently checked out by each individual. Specifically, the system tracks the name, office telephone number, email address, and office address of the borrower of each item currently checked out. The system also tracks the identification number or barcode associated with each work in the libraries' collections.
Records contained in this system of records are derived from information provided directly by the individual and from the DOJ Employee Directory Systems.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected:
(a) Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law.
(b) To any person or entity that the Department has reason to believe possesses information regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department, to the extent deemed to be necessary by the Department in order to elicit such information or cooperation from the recipient for use in the performance of an authorized activity.
(c) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(d) To an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or in informal discovery proceedings.
(e) To the news media and the public, including disclosures pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(f) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(g) To designated officers and employees of state, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement or detention agencies in connection with the hiring or continued employment of an employee or contractor, where the employee or contractor would occupy or occupies a position of public trust as a law enforcement officer or detention officer having direct contact with the public or with prisoners or detainees, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the recipient agency's decision.
(h) To appropriate officials and employees of a Federal agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or
(i) To a former employee of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a Federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(j) To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
(k) To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(l) To complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
(m) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(n) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(o) To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
Records in this system are stored in electronic form. Records are stored securely in accordance with applicable executive orders, statutes, and agency implementing recommendations. Electronic records are stored in databases and/or on hard disks, removable storage devices, or other electronic media.
Information is retrieved by an individual's identifying information (
Records are retained and destroyed in accordance with applicable schedules and procedures issued or approved by the National Archives and Records Administration. The circulation and use records of the Department-wide Library Circulation System are maintained for no longer than one year after borrowed items are returned. (DAA-GRS-2013-0002).
Information in this system is maintained in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and policies on protecting individual privacy. The servers storing electronic data and the backup tapes stored onsite are located in locked rooms with access limited to authorized agency personnel. Backup tapes stored offsite are maintained in accordance with a government contract that requires adherence to applicable laws, rules, and policies on protecting individual privacy. Internet connections are protected by multiple firewalls. Security personnel conduct periodic vulnerability scans using DOJ-approved software to ensure security compliance and security logs are enabled for all computers to assist in troubleshooting and forensics analysis during incident investigations. Users of individual computers can only gain access to the data by a valid user identification and password.
All requests for access to records must be in writing and should be addressed to the Justice Management Division, ATTN: FOIA Contact, Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Room 1111, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, sent by facsimile to (202) 616-6695, or emailed to
Although no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the FOIA/Privacy Act Mail Referral Unit, Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, or on the DOJ Web site at
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained in this system of records must direct their requests to the address indicated in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above. All requests to contest or amend records must be in writing and the envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” All requests must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record. More information regarding the Department's procedures for amending or contesting records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR 16.46, “Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records.”
Individuals may be notified if a record in this system of records pertains to them when the individuals request information utilizing the same procedures as those identified in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above.
None.
None.
Legal Services Corporation.
Postponement notice.
On August 15, 2017, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published a notice in the
Postponed.
This postponement is effective August 18, 2017.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1500;
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the names of the members selected to serve on its SES Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.
June 28, 2017.
Sarah Whittle Spooner, 202-395-4665.
Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations Research Advisory Committee (HEORAC).
Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 1Q39, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Dr. Bradley Carpenter, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0826 or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 844-467-6272 or toll number 720-259-6462, passcode 535959, followed by the # sign, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid Government issued picture ID to security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting are required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Dr. Bradley Carpenter via email at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing announcing
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 16, 2017, the Postal Service filed notice pursuant to 39 CFR 3015.5, announcing its intention to change rates not of general applicability for Inbound EMS 2 effective January 1, 2018.
To support its proposed EMS 2 prices and related requests, the Postal Service filed a redacted version of the proposed prices; a copy of the certification required under 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2); a redacted copy of Governors' Decision No. 11-6; a redacted copy of the annual EMS Pay-for-Performance (PfP) Plan for 2017; and redacted copies of the PfP Report Cards for Calendar Year (CY) 2016 and for the first two quarters of CY 2017. Notice at 2-3. The Postal Service also filed unredacted copies of Governors' Decision No. 11-6, proposed prices, service performance data, and related financial information under seal.
In its Notice, the Postal Service proposes a new, simplified two-tiered pricing system.
The Postal Service also requests, beginning January 1, 2018, relief from the requirement that it file quarterly updates that list all countries whose designated postal operators fall within each applicable tier of EMS 2 rates. Notice at 8. This requirement is outlined in Order No. 162, which added Inbound EMS 2 to the competitive product list.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2017-271 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice and appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, or 3633, and 39 CFR part 3015. Comments are due no later than August 24, 2017. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2017-271 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than August 24, 2017.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
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 August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller 1 product to the Competitive Products List.
Lauren Schuttloffel, (202) 268-4198.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on August 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller 1 Contracts to the Competitive Products List, and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal. Documents are available at
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 August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
The Presidio Trust.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with § 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 28, 2017, at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco, California.
The purposes of this meeting are: To approve the minutes of a previous Board meeting; to provide the Chief Executive Officer's report; to receive reports from Board members and committees; to receive public input on the rehabilitation of Fort Scott buildings as a place where the environmental and social challenges of our day are addressed; and to receive public comment on other matters pertaining to Trust business.
Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at 415.561.5300 prior to September 21, 2017.
The meeting will be held at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco.
Nancy J. Koch, General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300.
On June 13, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposes to revise the ICC Rulebook to provide for the clearance of additional Standard Emerging Market Sovereign CDS contracts. The Commission finds 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 ICC's proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Exchange's proposed [sic] rule change (the “Proposed Rule Change”) in connection with the proposed merger (the “Merger”) with a newly-formed Delaware limited liability company under the Exchange's ultimate parent, Nasdaq, Inc., resulting in the Exchange as the surviving entity. Following the Merger, the Exchange's board and committee structure, and all related corporate governance processes, will be harmonized with that of the three other registered national securities exchanges and self-regulatory organizations owned by Nasdaq, Inc., namely: The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NSM”), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), and NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” and together with NSM and Phlx, the “Nasdaq Exchanges”).
In connection with the Merger and as discussed more fully below, the Exchange proposes to adopt new organizational documents that set forth a corporate governance framework and related processes that are substantially similar in all material respects to those of the Nasdaq Exchanges.
The Exchange intends to implement the Proposed Rule Change no later than by the end of Q4 2017. The Exchange will alert its members in the form of a Regulatory Alert to provide notification of the implementation date.
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 was recently acquired by Nasdaq, Inc. (“HoldCo”).
The proposed changes consist of: (1) Deleting the Exchange's current Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Current LLC Agreement”) in its entirety and replacing it with a new limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”) that is based on the limited liability company agreement of NSM, (2) deleting the Exchange's current Constitution (“Current Constitution” and together with the Current LLC Agreement, the “Current Governing Documents”) in its entirety and replacing it with a new set of by-laws (the “Bylaws” and together with the LLC Agreement, the “New Governing Documents”) that is based on the by-laws of NSM, and (3) making minor clarifying changes to its rules, as discussed below.
All of the proposed changes are designed to align the Exchange's corporate governance framework to the existing structure at the Nasdaq Exchanges, particularly as it relates to board and committee structure, nomination and election processes, and related governance practices.
In order to effectuate the proposed changes above, the Exchange proposes to merge with a Delaware limited liability company (“NewCo”), newly-formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISE Holdings, resulting in the Exchange as the surviving entity. Specifically, pursuant to the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, as amended from time to time (the “LLC Act”), NewCo would be formed under ISE Holdings upon filing a certificate of formation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (“DE Secretary of State”). Subsequently, the Exchange would enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NewCo (the “Merger Agreement”), under which NewCo would merge into the Exchange, with the Exchange surviving the Merger. The Merger Agreement contemplates that the merged limited liability company (
Following the Merger, the Exchange proposes to be governed by the New Governing Documents in accordance with the LLC Act. The specific changes effected by the New Governing Documents to the current documents are discussed in the following sections.
Following the Merger, the Exchange proposes to adopt the LLC Agreement,
Section 1 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Name,” specifies the name of the surviving entity of the Merger as the name of the Exchange. Section 2 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Principal Business Office,” provides for the principal business office of the Exchange and such other location as may hereafter be determined by the Board.
Sections 3 and 4 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Registered Office” and “Registered Agent,” specifies the place of the Exchange's registered office and the entity acting as its registered agent, which is the same place and entity used by the Nasdaq Exchanges.
Section 5 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Sole LLC Member,” provides that the mailing address of the Sole LLC Member is set forth on Schedule B of the LLC Agreement. As noted above, ISE Holdings will remain as the Sole LLC Member of the Exchange.
Section 6 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Certificates,” refers to the filing of the Certificate of Merger with respect to the Merger. Such provision acknowledges and confirms that such filings, which were necessary for the merger to be effected, were authorized by the Exchange. This Section additionally sets forth those person(s) who have the authority to file any other certificates with the Delaware Secretary of State on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to the LLC Act. This provision is purely administrative in nature and therefore will have no material substantive effect on the current operations or the governance of the Exchange.
Section 7 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Purposes,” discusses the Exchange's business purpose, which provides that the Exchange may engage in any lawful act or activity for which limited liability companies may be formed under the LLC Act and any and all activities necessary or incidental to the foregoing. Without limiting these general powers, proposed Section 7 also specifically provides that the Exchange's business would include actions that support its regulatory responsibilities under the Act, including: (i) Supporting the operation, regulation, and surveillance of the national securities exchange operated by the Exchange, (ii) preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promoting just and equitable principles of trade, fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest, (iii) supporting the various elements of the national market system pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and the rules thereunder, (iv) fulfilling the Exchange's self-regulatory responsibilities as set forth in the Act, and (v) supporting such other initiatives as the Board may deem appropriate. Section 7 mirrors the Section 7 of the NSM LLC Agreement, and is similar to the language in Section 1.3 of the Current LLC Agreement of the Exchange.
Section 8 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Powers,” discusses the general powers of the Exchange, the Board and the officers of the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange, the Board and the officers on behalf of the Exchange (i) shall have and exercise all powers necessary, convenient or incidental to accomplish its purposes as set forth in Section 7 of the LLC Agreement and (ii) shall have and exercise all of the powers and rights conferred upon limited liability companies formed pursuant to the LLC Act. Section 8 is based on Section 8 of the NSM LLC Agreement, and is similar to the provisions in the Current LLC Agreement and the Current Bylaws.
Section 9 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Management,” sets forth the proposed management structure of the Exchange. Section 9(a) pertains to the Board of the Exchange and provides that the Board will manage the Exchange's business and affairs, similar to the provisions in Section 5.1 of the Current LLC Agreement.
The Exchange proposes in Section 9(a), similar to the Nasdaq Exchanges, that at least 20% of the Directors would be Member Representative Directors.
By adopting the new Board structure set forth in the New Governing Documents, the Exchange is proposing to replace the Exchange Director positions and all related concepts thereto,
New Section 9(a) of the LLC Agreement also proposes that all Directors other than the Member Representative Directors shall be elected by the Sole LLC Member in the manner described in the proposed Bylaws. Mirroring Section 9(a) of the NSM LLC Agreement, each Director elected, designated or appointed by the Sole LLC Member shall hold office until a successor is elected and qualified or until such Director's earlier death, resignation, expulsion or removal. As noted above, Member Representative Directors shall be elected in accordance with the Bylaws. Each Director shall execute and deliver an instrument accepting such appointment and agreeing to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the LLC Agreement and the Bylaws. A Director need not be an Exchange member.
The Exchange is also proposing to adopt substantially similar provisions set forth in Section 9 of the NSM LLC Agreement with respect to the Powers of the Board, the By-Laws, the Meeting of the Board of Directors, Quorum; LLC Acts of the Board and Electronic Communications.
The Meeting of the Board of Directors subsection contains standard Delaware limited liability company provisions governing regular and special meetings of the board, and related notice provisions. Similar language is found in Section 3.6 of the Current Constitution, and the Exchange is proposing to streamline these administrative procedures across the Nasdaq Exchanges. The Exchange also proposes to add a provision in this subsection that all meetings of the Board of Directors of the Exchange (and any committees of the Exchange) pertaining to the self-regulatory function of the Exchange (including disciplinary matters) or relating to the structure of the market which the Exchange regulates shall be closed to all persons other than members of the Board of Directors and officers, staff, counsel or other advisors whose participation is necessary or appropriate to the proper discharge of such regulatory functions and any representatives of the Commission. The proposed language also prohibits members of the Sole LLC Member's board of directors who are not also members of the Exchange's board of directors or any officers, staff, counsel or advisors of the Sole LLC Member who are not also officers, staff, counsel or advisors of the Exchange from participating in such meetings.
The subsections, Quorum; LLC Acts of the Board and Electronic Communications, contain standard Delaware limited liability company provisions governing quorum rules for Board actions, Board action by unanimous written consent, and how Board and committee members may participate in Board and committee meetings, as applicable. The Exchange notes that these provisions are similar in all material respects to those in the Current Governing Documents
Section 9(g) of the LLC Agreement generally discusses the standing committees and provides that the Board may designate one or more committees. By adopting new Section 9(g), the Exchange is proposing to delete the current committees set forth in Article V of the Current Constitution and adopt the standing committees similar to those of the Nasdaq Exchanges. Article V of the Current Constitution provides for the following committees: An Executive Committee, a Corporate Governance Committee, a Finance and Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, and such other additional committees as may be established by Board resolution. Article V also provides for a nominating committee, which is a committee of the Exchange and not the Board, and nominates the Exchange Directors for election to the Board (the “Exchange Director Nominating Committee”). The Exchange proposes to replace these rules with “Committees Composed Solely of Directors” and “Committees Not Composed Solely of Directors” at newly proposed and named Bylaw Article III. The details of those committees will be discussed below in the Bylaws section.
The Exchange proposes to adopt substantially similar provisions set forth in Section 9(g) of the NSM LLC Agreement with respect to the standing committees.
Similar to Section 3.9 of the Current Constitution, proposed Section 9(h) provides that the compensation of Directors shall be fixed by the Board. This language mirrors the provisions in Section 9(h) of the NSM LLC Agreement. The Removal and Resignation of Directors language in proposed Section 9(i) also mirrors Section 9(i) of the NSM LLC Agreement, and is similar to the resignation and removal language in Section 5.4 of the Current LLC Agreement and Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Current Constitution. The Directors as Agents language in proposed Section 9(j) provides that the Directors are agents of the Exchange and mirrors Section 9(j) of the NSM LLC Agreement.
Section 10, titled “Officers,” the Exchange proposes to adopt identical language regarding officer appointments found in Section 10 of the NSM LLC Agreement, which provisions are similar in nature to the existing provisions in Article IV of the Current Constitution.
Section 11, titled “Limited Liability,” contains standard Delaware limited liability company language on the limitation of liability of the Sole LLC Member and the Directors in the manner permitted under the LLC Act. The proposed language is similar to the limitation of liability language found in the Current LLC Agreement
Sections 12 through 14 of the LLC Agreement, which are virtually identical to Sections 12 through 14 of the NSM LLC Agreement, are equity-related provisions that encompass the topics of capital contributions, additional capital contributions, and allocations of profits and losses. These provisions set forth the basic economic arrangement of the Sole LLC Member and remain consistent with the economic arrangement under the Current Governing Documents.
Similar to Section 4.1 of the Current LLC Agreement, Section 16 of the LLC Agreement, titled “Books and Records,” sets forth certain information relating to general administrative matters with respect to the books and records of the Exchange. Specifically, the Board shall keep or cause to be kept complete and accurate books of account and records with respect to the Exchange's business. The books of the Exchange shall at all times be maintained by the Board. The Exchange's books of account shall be kept using the method of accounting determined by the Sole LLC Member. Further, the Exchange's independent auditor shall be an independent public accounting firm selected by the Board.
Section 17, titled “Reports,” is being added to mirror the language of the NSM LLC Agreement, and requires the Board, after the end of each fiscal year, to use reasonable efforts to cause the Exchange's independent accountants, if any, to prepare and transmit to the Sole LLC Member any tax information that the Sole LLC Member may reasonably need to prepare its federal, state and local income tax returns for such fiscal year.
Section 19, titled “Exculpation and Indemnification,” is based on Section 19 of the NSM LLC Agreement. Similar to the provisions in Article VI of the Current Constitution, the language provides for the exculpation and indemnification of ISE Holdings and any officer, Director, employee or agent of the Exchange or of the affiliate of ISE Holdings. Section 20, titled Assignment, is based on Section 20 of the NSM LLC Agreement, but retains similar transfer restrictions from Section 7.1 of the Current LLC Agreement on any assignments by the Sole LLC Member and prohibits the Sole LLC Member from transferring or assigning its limited liability company interest in the Exchange, unless the Commission approves such transfer or assignment pursuant to a rule filing under Section 19 of the Act.
Sections 22 through 28 of the proposed LLC Agreement contain general provisions which are relatively standard in Delaware limited liability company agreements.
Section 27, titled “Amendments,” provides that the LLC Agreement may be amended by a resolution adopted by the Board and a written agreement executed and delivered by the Sole LLC Member, and further provides that all such amendments to the LLC Agreement will not become effective until filed with, or filed with and approved by, the Commission, as required under Section 19 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Schedule A to the LLC Agreement, which contains key definitions used in the LLC Agreement. The Exchange also proposes a section on rules of construction further explaining the definitions in proposed Schedule A.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the Bylaws,
Article II of the Bylaws, titled “Annual Election of Member Representative Directors and Other Actions by Exchange Members,” mirrors the language in NSM Bylaw Article II,
Under the current nomination and election process, nominees for election of the Exchange Directors are selected each year by the Exchange Director Nominating Committee (which is not a Board committee but composed of three Exchange member representatives).
Specifically pursuant to Section 3.2(c) of the Current Constitution, the Exchange Directors are divided into two classes, designated as Class I and Class II directors. Each of Class I and Class II is comprised of half of the Exchange Directors. The Exchange Directors of each class holds office until their successors are duly elected and qualified. At each annual meeting of the holders of Exchange Rights, the successors of the class of Exchange Directors whose term expires at that meeting will be elected by the Exchange Rights holders to hold office for a term expiring at the annual meeting held in the second year following the year of their election, and until their successors are elected and qualified.
The Exchange is proposing to adopt identical nomination and election processes as the Nasdaq Exchanges as set forth in proposed Bylaw Article II, Section 1 so that Member Representative Directors would be elected to the Board on an annual basis.
“Contested Election” will be defined as an election for one or more Member Representative Directors for which the number of candidates on the List of Candidates exceeds the number of positions to be elected.
An additional candidate may be added to the List of Candidates by any Exchange member that submits a timely and duly executed written nomination to the Secretary of the Exchange. To be timely, an Exchange member's notice would have to be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of the Exchange not later than the close of business on the 90th day nor earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year's Election Date, provided however that in the event that the Election Date is more than 30 days before or more than 70 days after such anniversary date, notice by the Exchange member must be so delivered not earlier than the close of business on the 120th day prior to such Election Date and not later than the close of business on the later of the 90th day prior to such Voting Election or the tenth day following the day on which public announcement of such Election Date is first made by the Exchange. Such Exchange member's notice shall set forth: (i) As to the person whom the Exchange member proposes to nominate for election as a Member Representative Director, all information relating to that person that is required to be disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of directors in an election contest, or is otherwise required, in each case pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Act and the rules thereunder (and such person's written consent to be named in the List of Candidates as a nominee and to serving as a Director if elected); (ii) a petition in support of the nomination duly executed by the Executive Representatives
For purposes of determining whether a person has been nominated for election by petition by the requisite percentage, no Exchange member, alone or together with its affiliates, may account for more than 50% of the signatures endorsing a particular candidate, and any such signatures by such Exchange member, alone or together with its affiliates, in excess of such 50% limitation shall be disregarded.
If by the date on which an Exchange member may no longer submit a timely nomination, there is only one candidate for each Member Representative Director position to be elected on the Election Date, the Member Representative Directors will be elected by ISE Holdings as the Sole LLC Member from the List of Candidates. In the event of a Contested Election, the Exchange would conduct a vote to determine the candidates on the List of Candidates in accordance with proposed Section 2 of Bylaw Article II, which mirrors the language found in Section 2 of the NSM Bylaw Article II.
If there is a Contested Election, each Exchange member would have the right to cast one vote for each Member Representative Director position to be filled; provided, however, that any such vote must be cast for a person on the List of Candidates. However, an Exchange member, either alone or together with its affiliates, may not cast votes representing more than 20% of the votes cast for a candidate, and any votes cast by the Exchange member, either alone or together with its affiliates, in excess of such 20% limitation would be disregarded.
New Section 3 of Bylaw Article II proposes that if a Member Representative Director position becomes vacant prior to the expiration of such person's term, or it an increase in the size of the Board results in the creation of a new Member Representative Director position, the Sole LLC Member will elect a person from a list of candidates prepared by the Member Nominating Committee to fill such vacancy, except that if the remaining term of office for the vacant Director position is less than six months, no replacement will be required. The proposal would replace the current process for filling Exchange Director vacancies on the Board,
Related to the proposed changes to the Exchange's nomination and election process described above, the Exchange also proposes to create a Member Nominating Committee, which would replace the current Exchange Director Nominating Committee in nominating candidates for director positions that meet the fair representation requirement (
The Exchange believes that the proposed process for selecting Member Representative Directors, together with the requirement in the proposed LLC Agreement that the Board be comprised of at least 20% Member Representative Directors as discussed in the LLC Agreement section above, will continue to provide for a fair representation of its members on the Board. Similar to the nomination and election process currently in place, proposed Bylaw Article II includes a process by which members can directly petition and vote for representation on the Board. The Exchange also believes that proposed process for selecting Member Representative members, together with requirements in the proposed Bylaws that certain committees such as the Quality of Markets Committee be composed of at least 20% Member Representative members, will continue to provide for fair representation of its members in the administration of the
The Exchange is proposing to adopt Article III of the Bylaws, titled “Board of Directors,” which is based on NSM Bylaw Article III. Section 1 of Bylaw Article III proposes that if any Director position other than a Member Representative Director position becomes vacant, whether because of death, disability, disqualification, removal, or resignation, the Nominating Committee (discussed below) shall nominate, and the Sole LLC Member shall select, a person satisfying the classification (Industry, Non-Industry, or Public Director), if applicable, for the directorship to fill such vacancy.
Section 2(a) of Bylaw Article III sets forth the proposed Board composition requirements and provides that a Director may not be subject to a statutory disqualification. The Exchange is proposing to replace the current Board qualification requirements with the ones set forth in the new Section 2(a), which mirrors the qualifications language in Section 2(a) of NSM Bylaw Article III. This proposed change to the current Board composition is in addition to the proposal discussed in the LLC Agreement section above to give the Sole LLC Member discretion to determine the size of the Board from time to time.
Currently, the number of directors on the Board must be no less than eight and no more than sixteen
The term “industry representative” means a person who is an officer, director or employee of a broker or dealer or who has been employed in any such capacity at any time within the prior three (3) years, as well as a person who has a consulting or employment relationship with or has provided professional services to the Exchange and a person who had any such relationship or provided any such services to the Exchange at any time within the prior three (3) years.
The Exchange is proposing to replace the aforementioned Board composition with the board structure in place at the Nasdaq Exchanges. As is the case with the Nasdaq Exchanges, the proposed Board composition would be required to reflect a balance among “Industry Directors,” “Member Representative Directors,” and “Non-Industry Directors,” including “Public Directors.”
• At least twenty percent (20%) of the directors on the Board would be “Member Representative Directors;”
• The number of “Non-Industry Directors”
• The Board would include at least one “Public Director”
• Up to two officers of the Exchange (“Staff Directors”) may be elected to the Board.
Under Section 2(b) of the proposed Bylaws, which mirrors Section 2(b) of NSM Bylaw Article III, a Director would be disqualified and removed immediately upon a determination by the Board, by a majority vote of the remaining Directors, (a) that the Director no longer satisfies the classification for which the Director was elected; and (b) that the Director's continued service as such would violate the compositional requirements of the Board set forth in proposed Section 2(a). Thus, for example, if a Public Director became employed by a broker-dealer and the Board thereby had an inadequate number of Public Directors, the Director would be disqualified and removed. If a Director is disqualified and removed, and the remaining term of office of such Director at the time of termination is not more than 6 months, a replacement for the Director is not required until the next annual meeting. Analogous disqualification provisions exist for committee members.
Upon the Acquisition, there were a number of harmonizing changes to the Board,
The terms of the directors on the post-Acquisition Board ended at the 2017 annual meeting of the Exchange Members and Sole LLC Member (“2017 Annual Election”), which was held on June 19, 2017 to elect the current Board and coincided with the 2017 annual elections of the Nasdaq Exchange boards. The Exchange held the 2017 Annual Election to elect the current Board in accordance with the nomination, petition and voting processes set forth in the Current Governing Documents. Once the New Governing Documents become operative, no additional actions will be required under the LLC Act with respect to the current Board. All of the directors on the current Board are existing directors who served on the post-Acquisition Board and, similar to the post-Acquisition Board as described above, the current Board satisfies the board composition requirements both in the Current Governing Documents and in the New Governing Documents.
Second, eight directors who meet the requirements of non-industry representatives under the Current Constitution as well as Non-Industry Directors under the proposed Bylaws were nominated by the existing Corporate Governance Committee and elected by the Sole LLC Member to the current Board. Further, at least three of these directors are Public Directors or issuer representatives, consistent with the composition requirements under the Current Constitution and proposed Bylaws. The current Board therefore reflects a balance among the six Exchange Directors (
For the annual elections starting in 2018 and subject to approval by the Commission, the Exchange will hold its annual elections in accordance with the processes contemplated in the New Governing Documents and as such, the 2017 Board will serve until the 2018 annual election. Specifically upon the Merger, the 2017 Board will appoint a Nominating Committee (as discussed in detail below) and a Member Nominating Committee, and such committees would nominate candidates for the 2018 annual election pursuant to the procedures set forth in proposed Bylaw Article I (for Member Representative Directors) and in proposed Section 9(a) of the LLC Agreement and proposed Bylaw Article III (for all other Directors).
Section 3 of Bylaw Article III, which is copied from Section 3 of NSM Bylaw Article III, contains standard provisions for a Delaware limited liability company governing the appropriateness of reliance by Directors upon the records of the Exchange. Section 3 also recognizes the Exchange's status as an SRO by providing that the Board, when evaluating any proposal, shall, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, take into account all factors that the Board deems relevant, including, without limitation, (i) the potential impact thereof on the integrity, continuity and stability of the national securities exchange operated by the Exchange and the other operations of the Exchange, on the ability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and on investors and the public, and (ii) whether such would promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and facilitating transactions in securities or assist in the removal of impediments to or perfection of the mechanisms for a free and open market and a national market system. Taken together, these provisions are designed to reinforce the notion that the Exchange is not solely a commercial enterprise but rather an SRO registered pursuant to the Act and subject to the obligations imposed by the Act.
The proposed new Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Bylaw Article III, which are based on Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the NSM Bylaw Article III, would include provisions governing the composition and authority of various standing committees established by the Board. Proposed new Section 4 of Bylaw Article III would require prospective committee members, who are not Directors, to provide the Secretary of the Exchange with certain information to classify a committee member as an Industry member,
Sections 5 and 6 of proposed Bylaw Article III, titled “Committees Composed Solely of Directors” and “Committees Not Composed Solely of Directors,” establishes several standing committees and delineates their general duties and responsibilities. The proposed committee structure is modeled substantially on the committee structures of the Nasdaq Exchanges, and are copied to the extent such committees are relevant to the Exchange.
Currently, the standing Board committees of the Exchange are: An Executive Committee, a Corporate Governance Committee, a Finance and Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, and such other additional committees as may be established by Board resolution.
New Section 5 of Bylaw Article III, which copies the language in Section 5 of NSM Bylaw Article III, provides for an Executive Committee, a Finance Committee, and a Regulatory Oversight Committee.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Section 5(a), which provides that the Board may appoint an Executive Committee and delineates its composition and functions. In particular, the proposed Executive Committee may exercise all the powers and authority of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of the Exchange between meetings of the Board. The number of Non-Industry Directors on the Executive Committee must equal or exceed the number of
The Exchange also proposes to adopt new Section 5(b), which provides that the Board may appoint a Finance Committee and delineates its composition and functions. In particular, the Finance Committee will advise the Board with respect to the oversight of the financial operations and conditions of the Exchange, including recommendations for the Exchange's annual operating and capital budgets and proposed changes to the rates and fees charged by the Exchange. By adopting new Section 5, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the current Finance and Audit Committee, and have all of its duties and functions performed at the Board level, assigned to other proposed Board committees or to the HoldCo audit committee (the “HoldCo Audit Committee”).
Pursuant to its current charter, the Finance and Audit Committee
Furthermore, the HoldCo Audit Committee also covers the functions of the current Finance and Audit Committee. The HoldCo Audit Committee is composed of at least three directors, all of whom must satisfy the standards for independence set forth in Section 10A(m) of the Act
The HoldCo Audit Committee has broad authority to review the financial information that will be provided to shareholders of HoldCo and others, systems of internal controls, and audit, financial reporting and legal and compliance processes. Because HoldCo's financial statements are prepared on a consolidated basis that includes the financial results of HoldCo's subsidiaries, including the Exchange and the other Nasdaq Exchange subsidiaries, HoldCo's audit committee purview necessarily includes these subsidiaries. The Exchange notes that unconsolidated financial statements of the Exchange will still be prepared for each fiscal year in accordance with the requirements set forth in its application for registration as a national securities exchange.
The Exchange believes, however, that even in light of the HoldCo Audit Committee's overall responsibilities for internal controls and the internal audit function, it is nevertheless important for the Board to maintain its own independent oversight over the Exchange's controls and internal audit matters relating to the Exchange's operations. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to create a Regulatory Oversight Committee (“ROC”) so that regulatory oversight functions formerly performed by the Finance and Audit Committee may be assumed by the new committee.
Similarly, it is already a formal practice of HoldCo's Internal Audit Department, which performs internal audit functions for all HoldCo subsidiaries, to report to the Nasdaq
To effectuate this change, the Exchange proposes to adopt the new Section 5(c) providing for a ROC and delineating its composition and functions. In particular, the proposed ROC's responsibilities will be to: (i) Oversee the adequacy and effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory organization responsibilities; (ii) assess the Exchange's regulatory performance; and (iii) assist the Board and other committees of the Board in reviewing the regulatory plan and the overall effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory functions. In furtherance of its functions, the ROC shall: (A) review the Exchange's regulatory budget and specifically inquire into the adequacy of resources available in the budget for regulatory activities; (B) meet regularly with the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer in executive session; and (C) be informed about the compensation and promotion or termination of the Chief Regulatory Officer and the reasons therefor. The Exchange proposes that the ROC shall consist of three members, each of whom shall be a Public Director and an “independent director” as defined in Rule 5605 of the Rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC.
Given the expansive regulatory and internal oversight of the proposed ROC and HoldCo Audit Committee, coupled with the oversight and responsibilities of the full Board and HoldCo's Internal Audit Department, the Exchange believes that all of the duties and functions of the eliminated Finance and Audit Committee would continue to be performed in the new governance structure as proposed herein.
By adopting the new Board committees in Section 5, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate its current Compensation Committee, and to prescribe that its duties be performed by the HoldCo management compensation committee or the full Board when required. The Compensation Committee
To the extent that policies, programs, and practices must also be established for any Exchange officers or employees who are not also HoldCo officers or employees, the Board would perform such actions without the use of a compensation committee (but subject to the recusal of the Staff Directors).
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate the current Corporate Governance Committee, and to prescribe that its duties be performed by the new Nominating Committee (as discussed below), the new ROC or by the full Board when required. The Corporate Governance Committee
As it relates to the general supervision over the corporate governance of the Exchange, the full Board would perform such functions without the use of a corporate governance committee, similar to the boards of the Nasdaq Exchanges.
In addition to the proposed Board committees discussed above, new Section 6 of Bylaw Article III provides for the appointment by the Board of certain standing committees, not composed solely of Directors, to administer various provisions of the rules that the Exchange expects to propose with respect to governance, options trading and member discipline. By adopting Section 6, the Exchange proposes to eliminate certain standing committees and have their relevant functions performed by the new committees, each as described below.
The new Member Nominating Committee, responsible for: (i) The nomination for election of Member Representative Directors to the Board or (ii) the nomination for appointment of Member Representative members to the committees requiring such members, would replace the Exchange Director Nominating Committee. The composition requirements of the Member Nominating Committee are discussed in the Nomination and Election Process section above.
The new Nominating Committee will nominate candidates for all other vacant or new Director positions on the Board, and therefore, would perform the non-industry representative nomination function currently assigned to the Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating Committee will consist of no fewer than six and no more than nine members, and the number of Non-Industry members (
The new Quality of Markets Committee (the “QMC”), which is modeled off of the QMCs of the Nasdaq Exchanges,
Proposed Section 7 of Bylaw Article III contains standard provisions for a Delaware limited liability company requiring recusal by Directors or committee members subject to a conflict of interest, and providing for the enforceability of contracts in which a Director has an interest if appropriately approved or ratified by disinterested Directors. This language is based on Section 7 of NSM Bylaw Article III. Proposed Section 8 of Bylaw Article III allows for reasonable compensation of the Board and committee members, and mirrors Section 8 of NSM Bylaw Article III.
Bylaw Article IV, titled “Officers, Agents, and Employees,” contains provisions governing the Exchange's officers, agents and employees, and is based on Article IV of the NSM Bylaws. Proposed Section 1 of Bylaw Article IV provides that the Board may delegate the duties and powers of any officer of the Exchange to any other officer or to any Director for a specified period of
Bylaw Article VII, titled “Miscellaneous Provisions,” contains standard limited liability company provisions relating to waiver of notice of meetings and the Exchange's contracting ability. Article VIII, titled “Amendments; Emergency By-Laws,” authorizes amendments to the By-Laws by either the Sole LLC Member or the vote of a majority of the whole Board,
Article IX, titled “Exchange Authorities,” which mirrors NSM Bylaw Article IX, contains specific authorization for the Board to adopt rules needed to effect the Exchange's obligations as an SRO, to establish disciplinary procedures and impose sanctions on its members, to establish standards for membership, to impose dues, fees, assessments, and other charges and to take action under emergency or extraordinary market conditions.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current Rules to reflect the changes to its constituent documents through the adoption of the New Governing Documents to replace the Current Governing Documents.
In Rule 100, titled “Definitions,” the Exchange proposes to make the following changes:
• Rule 100(a) currently refers to Article XIII of the Current Constitution as containing certain defined terms that are also used in the Exchange's rulebook. The proposed change would replace the reference to Article XIII of the Current Constitution with references to the proposed LLC Agreement and By-Laws.
• Rule 100(a)(5) “board of directors” or “Board” currently refers to Article I of the LLC Agreement. The proposed change reflects that this definition will be set forth in Article I of the new Bylaws.
• Rule 100(a)(12) “CMM Rights” currently refers to Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would relocate the concept of CMM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to this Rule, and would state that the term CMM Rights means the non-transferable rights held by a Competitive Market Maker.
• New Rule 100(a)(13) “Competitive Market Maker” would be relocated from Section 13.1(f) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(13)-(14) “covered short position” and “discretion,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(14)-(15).
• Rule 100(a)(15) “EAM Rights” currently refers to Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would relocate the concept of EAM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to this Rule, and would state that EAM Rights means the non-transferable rights held by an Electronic Access Member.
• New Rule 100(a)(17) “Electronic Access Member” would be relocated from Section 13.1(j) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(16) and (17) “European-style option,” “Exchange Act” and “Exchange Rights,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(18)-(20).
• New Rule 100(a)(21) “Exchange Transaction” would be relocated from Section 13.1(o) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's
• Rules 100(a)(18) and (19) “exercise price” and “Federal Reserve Board,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(22) and (23).
• New Rule 100(a)(24) “good standing” would be relocated from Section 13.1(p) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(20)-(22) “he,” “him” or “his,” “ISE,” and “long position,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(25)-(27).
• Rule 100(a)(22A) “LLC Agreement” would be deleted as that term would no longer be used in the Rules, as amended by this rule change.
• Rules 100(a)(23)-(35) “Member,” “Membership,” “market makers,” “Market Maker Rights,” “Non-Customer,” “Non-Customer Order,” “offer,” “opening purchase transaction,” “opening writing transaction,” “Voluntary Professional,” “options contract,” “OPRA,” “order” and “outstanding,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(28)-(40).
• Rule 100(a)(36) “PMM Rights” currently refers to Article VI of the Current LLC Agreement. The proposed change would relocate the concept of PMM Rights from the Current LLC Agreement to this Rule, and would state that PMM Rights means the non-transferable rights held by a Primary Market Maker.
• New Rule 100(a)(42) “Primary Market Maker” would be relocated from Section 13.1(y) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(37), (37A), (37B), (37C), (38)-(48) “primary market,” “Priority Customer,” “Priority Customer Order,” “Professional Order,” “Public Customer,” “Public Customer Order,” “put,” “Quarterly Options Series,” “quote” or “quotation,” “Rules of the Clearing Corporation,” “SEC,” “series of options,” “short position,” “Short Term Option Series” and “SRO,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(43), (43A), (43B), (43C), (44)-(54).
• New Rule 100(a)(55) “System” would be relocated from Section 13.1(dd) of the Current Constitution. Currently, this term is used throughout the Exchange's rulebook, but the definition is only found in the Current Constitution.
• Rules 100(a)(49)-(51) “type of option,” “uncovered” and “underlying security,” respectively, would be renumbered as Rules 100(a)(56)-(58).
In Rule 304(b), the Exchange is proposing to replace the references to the Current Governing Documents with the proposed Bylaws to state that no Exchange member shall exercise voting rights in excess of those permitted under the Bylaws.
In Rule 309 “Limitation on Affiliation between the Exchange and Members,” the Exchange proposes to replace references to “Exchange Director” and “Constitution” with “Member Representative Director” and “By-Laws,” respectively, for the reasons discussed above. Lastly, the proposed changes in Rule 713(a) and Rule 720(a)(1) reflect the renumbering of the defined terms “offer,” “quotations,” “Priority Customer Orders,” “Professional Orders,” and “Priority Customer.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the Board and committee structure and related nomination and election processes set forth in New Governing Documents are consistent with the Act, including Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange be organized to carry out the purposes of the Act and comply with the requirements of the Act. In general, the proposed changes would make the Exchange's Board and committee composition requirements, and related nomination and election processes, more consistent with those of its affiliates, BX, NSM and Phlx. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed changes would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and comply with the provisions of the Act by its members and persons associated with members.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the New Governing Documents support a corporate governance framework that is designed to insulate the Exchange's regulatory functions from its market and other commercial interests so that the Exchange can carry out its regulatory obligations in furtherance of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that creation of a ROC, modeled on the approved ROCs of other Nasdaq Exchanges, and the inclusion of the Chief Regulatory Officer in the proposed Bylaws, would underscore the importance of the Exchange's regulatory function and specifically empower an independent committee of the Board to oversee regulation and meet regularly with the Chief Regulatory Officer. Furthermore, proposed language in the New Governing Documents specifically providing that the Exchange's business and the Board's evaluations would include actions and evaluations that support and take into account its regulatory responsibilities under the Act, reinforce the notion that the Exchange is not solely a commercial enterprise, but an SRO subject to the obligations imposed by the Act. The restriction on using Regulatory Funds to pay dividends to the Sole LLC Member further underscores the independence of the Exchange's regulatory function. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed requirements to include Public Directors on the Board (at least two Directors) and that on the ROC (all three Directors) would help to ensure that no single group of market
The Exchange also believes that the proposed 20% requirement for Member Representative Directors and the proposed method for selecting Member Representative Directors would ensure fair representation of Exchange members on the Board and allow members to have a voice in the Exchange's use of its self-regulatory authority. In particular, the Exchange notes that the Member Nominating Committee would be composed solely of persons associated with Exchange members and is selected after consultation with representatives of Exchange members. In addition, the new Bylaws include a process by which Exchange members can directly petition and vote for representation on the Board. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to remove the Exchange Director positions and related concepts from its organizational documents is consistent with fair representation requirement under the Act. Specifically, Exchange members will continue to be represented on the Board and on key standing committees, and will have a voice in the selection of Member Representative Directors through the Member Nominating Committee and through their ability to petition and vote on alternate candidates. As noted above, the trading privileges associated with the Exchange Rights, which are currently located in the Exchange's organizational documents, are already substantively in the Exchange's rulebook, and the Rules would be clarified to the extent such Rules refer back to the Current Governing Documents.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Board and composition requirements set forth in the New Governing Documents is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, because the Public Director positions on the Board and on the ROC would include the representatives of issuers and investors with no material business relationship with a broker dealer or the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed compositional balance of the proposed committees continues to provide for the fair representation of members in the administration of the affairs of the Exchange. In particular, all members of the new Member Nominating Committee must be associated persons of an Exchange member. In addition, at least 20% of the new QMC must be composed of Member Representative members. Moreover, the proposed compositional requirements provide that the Nominating Committee and the QMC must be compositionally balanced between Industry members and Non-Industry members. The proposed compositional requirements are designed to ensure that members are protected from unfair, unfettered actions by an exchange pursuant to its rules, and that, in general, an exchange is administered in a way that is equitable to all those who trade on its market or through its facilities.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the new corporate governance framework and related processes proposed by the New Governing Documents are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because they are identical to the framework and processes used by the Nasdaq Exchanges, which have been well-established as fair and designed to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that adopting the New Governing Documents based on the NSM model would streamline the Nasdaq Exchanges' governance process, create equivalent governing standards among HoldCo's SROs and also provide clarity to its members, which is beneficial to both investors and the public interest.
Finally, the proposed amendments to the Rules as discussed above are non-substantive changes to clarify the rule text where the Rule referred only to the Current LLC Agreement or to the Current Constitution, and also the technical amendments to renumber certain Rules.
Because the Proposed Rule Change relates to the corporate governance of the Exchange and not to the operations of the Exchange, 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.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 2, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On August 11, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On August 15, 2017, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 and filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.
The Commission is publishing this notice of Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
Currently, the Exchange operates its options market directly and has delegated certain responsibilities for operating its equities market to NYSE Arca Equities, its wholly-owned subsidiary.
To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Terminate the existing delegation to NYSE Arca Equities and remove the NYSE Arca Equities organizational documents and NYSE Arca Equities rulebook from the Exchange's rules; (2) amend the Exchange's corporate governance structure to integrate the representation and oversight of Equity Trading Permit holders (“ETP Holders”) and amend the composition requirements of the Exchange's Board of Directors (“Board”); (3) integrate the current NYSE Arca Equities rules into the NYSE Arca rules; and (4) revise its fee schedules to reflect the Merger. The Exchange proposes that these changes would become operative upon the completion of the Merger. The Exchange has stated that it would complete the Merger following the approval of the instant proposed rule change, on a date to be determined by the Board.
To effect the Merger, the Exchange proposes to terminate the delegation to NYSE Arca Equities of the operation of its equities market.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and rules to incorporate the direct representation by and oversight of Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”) into its governance structure (which currently references Options Trading Permit Holders (“OTP Holders”)), and to make other changes to its governance requirements. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make changes to its Board's composition and oversight authority; to amend its nominating process; and to modify the composition of various committees of the Board and the Exchange. The provisions pertaining to these aspects of the Exchange's corporate governance structure are contained primarily in Article III, Section 3 of its Bylaws and Exchange Rule 3.
The Exchange proposes to amend Article III, Section 3.01(b) of the Bylaws, which describes the powers of the Board, to add to the Board's authority matters pertaining to ETP Holders. Under this proposed amendment, the Bylaws would define the terms “Options Trading Permit Holders” and “Equities Permit Trading Holders” and would collectively refer to both of these categories as “Permit Holders.”
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Article III, Section 3.02(a) of its Bylaws to modify the requirement relating to the nomination of directors by the Exchange's members.
The Exchange also proposes to make other changes to the Board's composition that the Exchange states would be consistent with similar provisions of its affiliated national securities exchanges.
The Exchange proposes corresponding changes to current Rule 3.2(b)(2), relating to the Nominating Committee, to integrate the role of ETP Holders and OTP Holders (or their Allied Persons or their Associated Persons) into a unitary process for the nomination of the Non-Affiliated Directors.
Current Rule 3.2(b)(2)(A) contains the composition requirements for the Nominating Committee, which currently nominates the director selected by the OTP Holders to the Board. The current composition of the Nominating Committee consists of six (6) OTP Holders or Allied Persons or Associated Persons of an OTP Firm.
Because the proposal would eliminate the two categories of directors currently nominated by the OTP Holders and ETP Holders and would provide for a unitary process for nominating Non-Affiliated Directors, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Require the Nominating Committee to name all Non-Affiliated Director nominees that would be required under the revised rule;
The Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to incorporate ETP Holders into the petition process for candidates for
Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove obsolete rule text from Rule 3.2(b)(C)(i).
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws and rules to integrate ETP Holders and NYSE Arca Equities committees into the Exchange committee structure.
The Exchange proposes to revise Exchange Rule 3.1, which governs committees consisting partly or entirely of directors of the Exchange (that is, Board committees), and Exchange Rule 3.2, which governs committees consisting of people other than Exchange directors, to include the representation of ETP Holders. To accomplish this integration, the Exchange proposes to replace references to “Options Committee” and “Options Committees” with “Exchange Committee” and “Exchange Committees,” respectively, in Rules 3.1 and 3.2(a). The Exchange also proposes to add ETP Holders to the list of persons eligible for appointment to the Exchange Committees, as regular or alternate members, in Rules 3.2(a)(8) and 3.2(a)(9), respectively.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to add the current NYSE Arca Equities Business Conduct Committee (“BCC”) as an Exchange Committee in new Rule 3.2(b)(2) and include the same rule text that is in current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.2(b)(1), except that the references to current NYSE Arca Equities rules would be updated with the corresponding references to the rules in the proposed consolidated rulebook,
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of Rule 3.3(a)(2) regarding the composition of the Committee for Review (“CFR”) and the CFR Appeals Panel.
The Exchange proposes to add new Rule 3.12 to its rulebook, which would address access to and the status of the books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees of NYSE Arca, L.L.C. and its broker-dealer affiliate, Archipelago Securities, L.L.C. (“Arca Securities”), to the extent that the business activities of Arca Securities are deemed a facility of the Exchange. Proposed Rule 3.12 would be substantially the same as current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3, except that the term “the Exchange” would replace several references to NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities, and one reference to “NYSE Arca Equities” would be deleted.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make other conforming changes in other provisions of Rule 3. Specifically, in Rules 3.7 (Dues, Fees and Charges), 3.8 (Liability for Payment), and 3.10 (Certain Relationships), the Exchange proposes to add ETP Holders to existing references to OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
The Exchange currently maintains two rulebooks, the NYSE Arca rules for its options market and the NYSE Arca Equities rules for its equities market. In connection with the Merger and the termination of the Delegation, the Exchange proposes to integrate the two sets of rules into a single rulebook. The resulting rulebook would have three types of rules: (i) Rules that apply to both markets; (ii) rules that apply only to the options market, to be indicated by an “-O” appended to the end of the rule number; and (iii) rules that apply only to the equities market, to be indicated by an “-E” appended to the end of the rule number.
The Exchange proposes certain changes to various rules, as summarized below, that are intended to implement the Merger and the integration of its options and equities rules.
In addition to the changes to specific rules noted below, the Exchange proposes certain changes that would apply to the entire set of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to update cross-references to various rules to reflect proposed revisions to the titles and the renumbering of various rules
NYSE Arca Rules 0 (Regulation of the Exchange, OTP Holders, OTP Firms and ETP Holders), 1 (Definitions), 2 (Trading Permits), and 3 (Organization and Administration) would be grouped under the heading “General Rules” and would apply to both options and equities markets. These rules would contain changes based on the incorporation of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 0 through 3. Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following changes to Rules 0, 1, and 2.
For Exchange Rule 0, which references the Exchange's Regulatory Services Agreement with FINRA, the Exchange proposes to include “and ETP Holders” in the title because both sets of rules currently have the same rule text for Rule 0.
For Exchange Rule 1, which contains definitions used in the Exchange rules, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Add definitions from the NYSE Arca Equities rules that are unique to the equities market; (2) amend definitions that are common to both markets to reflect their common application, either by incorporating references to ETP Holders and the equities market or harmonizing differences between common terms currently used in both sets of rules; and (3) update the definitions to reflect changes contained elsewhere in the Exchange's proposal.
For Exchange Rule 2, which governs trading permits, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend the rule to clarify its application to ETP Holders and OTP Holders and OTP Firms; (2) add language identifying certain provisions that apply only to OTP Holders and OTP Firms; (3) incorporate certain defined terms and provisions that are unique to ETP Holders from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2, along with language clarifying that those provisions apply only to ETP Holders; (4) move NYSE Arca Rule 9.17 (Books and Records) into a proposed new rule, Rule 2.28, which corresponds with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 2.24 (ETP Books and Records); and (5) insert “Exchange” in lieu of an erroneous reference to “Corporation.”
As noted in Section II.C. above, the Exchange proposes to indicate those rules that apply solely to the options market by appending an “-O” at the end of the rule number. NYSE Arca Rules 4-O (Capital Requirements, Financial Reports, Margins—Options), 5-O (Options Contracts Traded on the Exchange), 6-O (Options Trading), 7-O (General Options Trading Rules), 8-O (Reserved), and 9-O (Conducting Business with the Public—Options) (collectively, the “Options Rules”) would be grouped under the heading “Options Rules” and would apply to only the options market.
The Exchange proposes that the Options Rules would be substantially the same as current NYSE Arca Rules 4 through 9, except that the Exchange proposes to: (1) Revise the titles of these rules to reflect that they would apply solely to options; (2) indicate that Rule 9.17 is “Reserved;”
As noted in Section II.C. above, the Exchange proposes to indicate those rules that apply solely to the equities market by appending an “-E” at the end of the rule number. NYSE Arca Rules 4-E (Capital Requirements, Financial Reports, Margins—Equities), 5-E (Equities Listings), 6-E (Order Audit Trail System), 7-E (Equities Trading), 8-E (Trading of Certain Equity Derivatives), and 9-E (Conducting Business with the Public—Equities) (collectively, the “Equities Rules”) would be grouped under the heading “Equities Rules” and would apply only to the equities market.
These proposed new Equities Rules would be substantially the same as current NYSE Arca Equities Rules 4 through 5, 7 through 9, the Conduct Rules, and the Order Audit Trail System Rules. However, the Exchange proposes several changes to: (1) Modify the organization of those rules;
NYSE Arca Rules 10 (Disciplinary Proceedings, Other Hearings and Appeals), 11 (Business Conduct), 12 (Arbitration), 13 (Cancellation, Suspension and Reinstatement), and 14 (Liability of Directors and Exchange) would apply to the options and equities markets and would be grouped under the heading “Disciplinary and Miscellaneous Rules.” These rules would contain changes based on the incorporation of NYSE Arca Equities Rules 6, 10 through 13, and 5220, as further described herein.
The Exchange also proposes to revise Rule 10.8 to clarify that the Committee for Review (“CFR”), and not the full Board, would be acting with respect to the Review Board. The CFR is the Board committee that has delegated authority to consider appeals on behalf of the Board and that appoints the Review Board under the rule. The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 10.8 to permit the Complainant or Respondent to request that the Board review a decision of the Review Board.
Initially, the Exchange proposed to delete the “Equities Fee Schedule” from the rules of the Exchange, and to adopt the “NYSE Arca Equities Fee Schedule” as the new fee schedule for the Exchange's equities market.
On August 15, 2017, the Exchange filed partial Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.
Finally, Amendment No. 2 would remove Exhibit 5J and replace current Exhibit 5E of the proposed rule change with new Exhibit 5E. Proposed new Exhibit 5E reflects the Exchange's proposal to amend the existing Equities Fee Schedule rather than adopting a new fee schedule. Amendment No. 2 would: (1) Amend the title of the Equities Fee Schedule to be consistent with the title format of the Options Fee Schedule; (2) update cross references to cite to the proposed NYSE Arca rules for the equities market by adding “-E” to the rule numbers; (3) update cross references to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 1.1(c) and 1.1(d) in footnotes 8 and 9 to NYSE Arca Rules 1.1(b) and (c) respectively; (4) correct the cross-references in the table under “Market Data Revenue Sharing Credit” from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(s) to NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(g); (5) remove the heading for “NYSE Arca Marketplace: Crowd Participant (`CP') Program Payments” table and text as they are now obsolete;
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange proposes to terminate the delegation to NYSE Arca Equities of the operation of its equities market and to remove the NYSE Arca Equities organizational documents from the Exchange's rules. As a result of the Merger, the Exchange would directly operate the equities market facility of the Exchange, while continuing to bear the responsibility to ensure the fulfillment of its statutory and self-regulatory organization responsibilities.
In addition, the Exchange proposes several changes to its Board composition requirements and the nomination process for the directors representing Permit Holders (
The Commission believes the proposed changes to the Exchange's Board composition, nomination process, and committee structure are consistent with Section 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(3) of the Act. The Commission notes that the proposal to allow NYSE Group to determine the size of the Board is consistent with previous proposed rule changes approved by the Commission that allow discretion as to the size of exchange boards.
The Exchange also proposes to integrate the existing NYSE Arca Equities rules into the NYSE Arca rules to create a single rulebook covering the Exchange's options and equities markets. As noted above, in carrying out this rule integration, the Exchange proposes to harmonize conflicting rules; combine rules, including definitions; update cross-references; update rule text; delete obsolete rule text; correct grammatical errors in rule text; rearrange rule provisions, as necessary; and make various non-substantive changes to the rules. The Commission notes that the Exchange represents that the proposed integration of NYSE Arca Equities rules into the NYSE Arca rules is not intended to change the substance of these rules, but is largely organizational in nature.
Finally, the Exchange proposes certain changes to the disciplinary proceedings rules governing its Permit Holders. The Exchange proposes to incorporate the rules relating to the current NYSE Arca Equities Business Conduct Committee (referred to as “the BCC”) into the Exchange's rules and to integrate the rules for disciplinary proceedings to cover both ETP Holders and OTP Holders. The Exchange represents that the proposed changes would provide that disciplinary proceedings involving ETP Holders would continue to be heard by the BCC, while disciplinary proceedings involving OTP Holders would continue to be heard by the Ethics and Business Conduct Committee (referred to as “the EBCC”).
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 13, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposes to revise the ICC Rulebook to provide for the clearance of Standard Asia Corporate Single Name CDS contracts, Standard Asia Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts, and Standard Emerging Market Corporate Single Name CDS contracts. The Commission finds 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 ICC's proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 10, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange 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 the proposed rule change, the issues raised in the comment letters that have been submitted in connection therewith, and the Exchange's responses to the comments. 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 add certain rules adopted in connection with the Exchange's transition to a fully-automated cash equities market to the list of minor rule violations in Rule 9217 of the Office Rules. 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.
On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”).
To effect its transition to Pillar, the Exchange adopted the rule numbering framework of the NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”) rules for Exchange cash equities trading on the Pillar trading platform.
Newly Exchange adopted rules that are based on NYSE Arca Equities Rules include the following:
NYSE Arca Equities includes its versions of the above-listed rules as eligible for disposition under its Minor Rule Plan.
Rule 9217, the Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan (“MRVP”), sets forth the list of rules under which a member organization or covered person may be subject to a fine under a minor rule violation plan as described in proposed Rule 9216(b).
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9217 to add recently adopted Rules 2.21E, 2.24E, 6.3E, 6.15E, 7.16E, 7.20E, 7.23E, and 7.30E to the list of rules eligible for disposition pursuant to the Exchange's MRVP. These proposed changes are based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12(g) and (h), which specifies, in part, that NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.21, 2.24, 6.3, 6.15(b),
Failure to comply with the sponsored participant access requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 7.29 is also eligible for disposition pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12(g)(3). NYSE American Rule 7.29E is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29(a) without any substantive differences. However, the Exchange did not include rule text based on NYSE
To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes to add a paragraph (a) titled “Trading Rule Violations” under the current heading in Rule 9217 titled “List of Equities Rule Violations and Fines Applicable Thereto,” [sic] Under proposed paragraph (a), the Exchange proposes to set forth the following text describing the eligible trading rule violations:
• Short Sale Rules (Rule 7.16E).
• Failure to maintain continuous, two-sided Q Orders in those securities in which the Market Maker is registered to trade (Rule 7.23E(a)(1)).
• Failure to comply with Authorized Trader requirements. (Rule 7.30E).
• Acting as a Market Maker in a security without being registered as such as required by Rule 7.20E(a).
• Committing any act prohibited by Rule 6.15E.
The Exchange further proposes paragraph (b) titled “Record Keeping and Other Minor Rule Violations” to Rule 9217, which would specify the following text describing the eligible rule violations:
• Failure to comply with the requirements for preventing the misuse of material nonpublic information as set forth in Rule 6.3E and its Commentaries.
• Failure to comply with the books and records requirements of Rule 2.24E.
• Failure to comply with the employee registration or other requirements of Rule 2.21E.
The Exchange further proposes a new paragraph (c) titled “Legacy Minor Rules”
Finally, in Rule 9217, the Exchange proposes to add proposed paragraph (d) titled “Fine Schedule” at the end of the current list of eligible rules, following “Rule 518—Equities requirements for clearance and settlement of transactions in Nasdaq Securities.” Below proposed paragraph (d), the Exchange would include the following text drawn from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12:
The following fine schedule sets forth the amount of the fine(s) to be imposed. Except as noted below, the amount of the fine(s) shall be imposed at the First Level pursuant to the chart below. If another Minor Rule Plan Fine has been issued to the same member organization or covered person
These fines are intended to apply to minor violations. For more serious violations, other disciplinary action may be sought.
Below this text, the Exchange would insert new three new subsections (1)-(3). Subsection (d)(1) would be titled “Trading Rule Violations Fine Levels” and would include a chart of first, second and third level fines based on the NYSE Arca Equities Rules for the equivalent Exchange Rules, as follows:
• Violations of Rule 7.16E would be eligible for a $500 first level fine, a $1,000 second level fine, and a $2,500 third level fine;
• Violations of Rule 7.23E(a)(1) would be eligible for a $250 first level fine, a $500 second level fine, and a $1,000 third level fine;
• Violations of Rule 7.30E would be eligible for a $1,000 first level fine, a $2,500 second level fine, and a $3,500 third level fine; and
• Violations of Rule 7.20E(a) would be eligible for a $250 first level fine, a $500 second level fine, and a $1,000 third level fine.
• Violations of Rule 6.15E would be eligible for a $1,000 first level fine, a $2,500 second level fine, and a $3,500 third level fine.
New subsection (d)(2) would be titled “Record Keeping and Other Minor Rule Violations Fine Levels,” and would include a chart of the first, second and third level fines that are based on the NYSE Arca Equities Rules for the equivalent Exchange Rule, as follows:
• Violations of Rule 6.3E and its Commentaries would be eligible for a $2,000 first level fine, a $4,000 second level fine, and a $5,000 third level fine.
• Violations of Rule 2.24E would be eligible for a $2,000 first level fine, a $4,000 second level fine, and a $5,000 third level fine.
• Violations of Rule 2.21E would be eligible for a $1,000 first level fine, a $2,500 second level fine, and a $3,500 third level fine.
These fine levels are the same as those in the NYSE Arca Equities fine schedule contained in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12(i) for each analogous rule.
New subsection (e) would be titled “Legacy Minor Rules Fine Schedule”
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to delete two erroneous references to “NYSE Arca” rules in Rule 476A (Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules)
Summary fines provide a meaningful sanction for minor or technical violations of rules. The Exchange believes that adding recently adopted Pillar Rules modeled on the trading rules of is affiliate NYSE Arca Equities to the list of rules eligible for disposition pursuant to the Exchange's MRVP and subject to the same fine levels as NYSE Arca Equities would harmonize requirements across exchanges for the same conduct. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that inclusion of Rules 2.21E, 2.24E, 6.3E, 6.15E, 7.16E, 7.20E, 7.23E, and 7.30E and the accompanying fine levels based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 10.12 in Rule 9217 would be appropriate.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because it will provide the Exchange the ability to issue a minor rule fine for violations of its rules governing cash equities trading and market maker and electronic DMM functions and obligations on the Pillar platform. In addition, adding rules based on the rules of its affiliate to the Exchange's minor rule plan and the associated fine levels would promote fairness and consistency in the marketplace by harmonizing minor rule plan fines across affiliated exchanges for the same conduct. Similarly, the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by further supporting the Exchange's transition to a fully automated cash equities trading model on the Pillar trading platform and, by including rules based on the rules of its affiliated market, NYSE Arca Equities, into the Exchange's MRVP with the same fine levels, further Pillar's goal of promoting consistency among the Exchange, NYSE Arca, and the NYSE.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 9217 are consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather to update the Exchange's MRVP to reflect newly adopted rules. The proposed rule change would also support the launch of the Exchange's new fully automated cash equities trading platform that trades all NMS Stocks and is based on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes in connection with the name change of its affiliate, from NYSE MKT LLC to NYSE American LLC, to amend certain rules, the Independence Policy of the Board of Directors (“Independence Policy”), the New York Stock Exchange Price List (“Price List”), and the NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fees (“Market Data Fees”) to reflect that name change. The proposed 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, in connection with the name change of its affiliate, from NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) to NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), to amend certain rules of the Exchange, the Independence Policy, Price List, and Market Data Fees to reflect that name change.
On March 16, 2017, NYSE MKT filed rule changes with the Commission in connection with its name change to NYSE American.
• The Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE MKT LLC” with “NYSE American LLC” in Rule 2, Supplementary Material .10 (“Member”, “Membership”, “Member Firm”, etc.); Rule 17(c)(2) (Use of Exchange Facilities and Vendor Services); Rule 18, Supplementary Material .10(a) (Compensation in Relation to Exchange System Failure); Rule 70, Supplementary Material .40(3) (Execution of Floor Broker Interest); Rule 98 (c)(6) (Operation of a DMM Unit); Rule 103, Supplementary Material .20(b)(6) (Registration and Capital Requirements of DMMs and DMM Units); and Rule 103B(IX) (Security Allocation and Reallocation).
• The Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE MKT” with “NYSE American” in Rule 2, Supplementary Material .10 and .20; Rule 17(c)(2); Rule 18, Supplementary Material .10; Rule 36, Supplementary Material .70(a)(iii) (Communications Between Exchange and Members' Officers); Rule 70, Supplementary Material .40(3); Rule 103, Supplementary Material .20(b)(6); and Rule 103B(IX).
• The Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor” with “NYSE American Options Trading Floor” in Rule 6A(b)(“Trading Floor”) and Rule 36, Supplementary Material .23 and .70(a).
• The Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE Amex” with “NYSE American” in Rule 36, Supplementary Material .23 and .70(a).
• The Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE Amex-listed” with “NYSE American-listed” in Rule 6A.
• In Rule 70, Supplementary Material .40(3), the Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE Amex option” with “NYSE American option.”
• In Rule 300, Supplementary Material .10T (Trading Licenses), the Exchange proposes to replace “NYSE Amex LLC” and “NYSE Amex” with “NYSE American LLC” and “NYSE American”, respectively.
•
•
•
None of the foregoing changes are substantive.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive change and does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the Exchange's rules, Independence Policy, Price List, and Market Data Fees accurately reflect the name change of its affiliate from NYSE MKT to NYSE American would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to such rules, Independence Policy, Price List, and Market Data Fees.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with the Exchange's rules, Independence Policy, Price List, and Market Data Fees. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such documents and rulebook accurately reflect the name change of its affiliate from NYSE MKT to NYSE American, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to replace “
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed deletion of footnote two of the Independence Policy would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the change would eliminate an obsolete reference to NYSE Regulation, thereby reducing potential confusion. Market participants and investors would not be harmed and in fact could benefit from the increased clarity and transparency in the Independence Policy, ensuring that market participants could more easily understand the Independence Policy.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating the Exchange's rules, Independence Policy, Price List, and Market Data Fees to reflect its affiliates [sic] name change from NYSE MKT to NYSE American and NYSE Amex Options to NYSE American Options.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Ahmad Alkhald, also known as Yassine Noure, also known as Mohammed Nawar Mohammed Alqadhi, also known as Mahmoud, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Abu Yahya al-Iraqi, also known as Ayad Hamed Mohal al-Jumail, also known as Ayad Hammed Muhal Shuab, also known as Abu-Yahya, also known as Iyad Hamed Mahl al-Jumaily, also known as Iyad al-Jumayli, also known as Ayad Hamid al-Jumaili, also known as Ayad al-Jumaili, also known as Ayad Miuhammed Mahar, also known as Ayad Muhammad Mahar, also known as Ayad Hamed Mohl Aljamali, also known as Ayad Hamed Mahal Joumily, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors Meeting.
The meeting will be held on August 24, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time.
The meetings will be open to the public at the Double Tree Suites Doheny Beach, 34402 Pacific Coast Highway, Dana Point, CA 92629, and via conference call. Those not attending the meeting in person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in the meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the opportunity to apply for $30 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program funds (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance #20.507) authorized for competitively selected passenger ferry projects. As required by Federal transit law and subject to funding availability, funds will be awarded competitively to designated recipients or eligible direct recipients of Section 5307 funds to assist in the financing of capital projects to support existing passenger ferry service, establish new ferry service, and to repair and modernize ferry boats, terminals, and related facilities and equipment. FTA may award additional funding made available to the program prior to the announcement of project selections.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Vanessa Williams, FTA Office of Program Management, (202) 366-4818, or
Section 5307(h) of Title 49, United States Code, as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015), authorizes FTA to award funds through a competitive process, as described in this notice, for capital projects to improve the condition and quality of existing passenger ferry services, support the establishment of new passenger ferry services, and to repair and modernize ferry boats, terminals, and related facilities and equipment. FTA recognizes that passenger ferries provide critical and cost-effective transportation links in urban areas throughout the United States but face a critical backlog of state of good repair and safety investments.
Federal transit law authorizes $30 million in FY 2017 for passenger ferry grants under 49 U.S.C. 5307(h) (Ferry program). FTA may supplement the total available with future appropriations. FTA will grant pre-award authority to incur costs for selected projects beginning on the date that project selections are announced. Funds are only available for projects that have not already incurred costs and will be available for obligation until September 30, 2022. In FY 2015 and FY 2016, the program received 21 proposals from 10 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands requesting $98.1 million in Federal funds. Eighteen projects were funded at a total of $58.9 million.
Eligible applicants under this program must be designated recipients or eligible direct recipients of Section 5307 funds, which include public entities engaged in providing a public transportation passenger ferry service in urbanized areas. If the recipient is eligible to receive 5307 funds, but does not currently have an active grant with FTA, upon selection, the recipient will be required to work with the FTA regional office to establish its organization as an active grantee. This process may require additional documentation to support the organization's technical, financial, and legal capacity to receive and administer Federal funds under this program.
Projects funded under the Section 5307(h) program are eligible for a maximum 80 percent Federal share, unless they qualify for one of the following exceptions:
The Federal share is 85 percent for net project costs for acquiring vehicles (including Clean-fuel or alternative fuel) that are compliant with the Clean Air Act (CAA) or compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
The Federal share is 90 percent for net project costs for vehicle-related equipment or facilities (including clean-fuel or alternative-fuel vehicle-related equipment or facilities) required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, or for purposes of complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air Act.
The FTA considers vehicle-related equipment to be equipment on or attached to the vehicle. The award recipient may itemize the cost of specific, discrete, vehicle-related
After the appropriate Federal share is established, the applicant must provide the local share of the net project cost and must document in its grant application the source of the local match. The local match may include:
i. Cash from non-governmental sources other than revenues from providing public transportation services;
ii. Non-farebox revenues from the operation of public transportation service, such as the sale of advertising and concession revenues. A voluntary or mandatory fee that a college, university, or similar institution imposes on all its students for free or discounted transit service that is not farebox revenue;
iii. Monies received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization;
iv. Undistributed cash surpluses, replacement or depreciation cash funds, reserves available in cash, or new capital;
v. Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to a department or agency of the Government (other than the U.S. Department of Transportation);
vi. In-kind contribution such as the market value of in-kind contributions integral to the project may be counted as a contribution toward local share;
vii. Revenue bond proceeds for a capital project, with prior FTA approval; and
viii. Transportation Development Credits (TDC) (formerly referred to as Toll Revenue Credits). Please refer to FTA Circular 9030 for more information regarding the use of TDCs.
FTA will not retroactively approve TDCs as match if they are not included in the proposal submitted under this competition.
Eligible projects are capital projects for the purchase, replacement, or rehabilitation of ferries, terminals, related infrastructure, related equipment (including fare equipment and communication devices) and expansion. Projects are required to support a passenger ferry service that operates within an urbanized area, as defined under Federal transit law, but may include services that operate between an urbanized area and non-urbanized areas. Ferry systems that accommodate cars must also accommodate walk-on passengers in order to be eligible for funding.
Recipients are permitted to use up to 0.5 percent of their requested grant award for workforce development activities eligible under 49 U.S.C. 5314(b) and an additional 0.5 percent for costs associated with training at the National Transit Institute. Applicants must identify the proposed use of funds for these activities in the project proposal and identify them separately in the project budget.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
A complete proposal submission consists of
An applicant may submit multiple project proposals in a single submission, but must include all project proposals on a single supplemental form. To add additional projects, select the “add project” button and complete a separate “project detail” section for each project. FTA will only accept one supplemental form per submission.
The supplemental form must be submitted as an attachment to the SF424 Mandatory Form. All project proposals will be evaluated separately, regardless of whether they are submitted as a single submission.
An applicant may submit additional supporting documentation for each project proposal as attachments. Any supporting documentation must be described and referenced by file name in the appropriate response section of the supplemental form, or it may not be reviewed.
Information such as proposer name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF424 form and Supplemental Form. Proposers must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. If information is copied into the supplemental form from another source, applicants should verify that pasted text is fully captured on the supplemental form and has not been truncated by the character limits built into the form. Proposers should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms, and ensure that the Federal and local amounts specified are consistent.
The SF424 Mandatory Form and the Supplemental Form will prompt applicants for the required information, including:
Each applicant is required to: (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting an
Project proposals must be submitted electronically through
Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive three email messages from
FTA urges proposers to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date to allow time to receive the validation messages and to correct any problems that may have caused a rejection notification.
Proposers are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the
Funds made available under the Ferry program may not be used to fund operating expenses, planning, or preventive maintenance.
Applicants are encouraged to identify scaled funding options in case insufficient funding is available to fund a project at the full requested amount. If an applicant indicates that a project is scalable, the applicant must provide an appropriate minimum funding amount that will fund an eligible project that achieves the objectives of the program and meets all relevant program requirements. The applicant must provide a clear explanation of how the project budget would be affected by a reduced award. FTA may award a lesser amount whether or not a scalable option is provided.
i. Criteria: Projects will be evaluated primarily on the responses provided in the supplemental form. Additional information may be provided to support the responses; however, any additional documentation must be directly referenced on the supplemental form, including the file name where the additional information can be found. FTA will evaluate project proposals for competitive passenger ferry grants based on the criteria described in this notice.
Applications will be evaluated based on the quality and extent to which they demonstrate how the proposed project will address an unmet need for capital investment in passenger ferry vehicles, equipment, and/or facilities. FTA will also evaluate the project's impact on service delivery and whether the project represents a one-time or periodic need that cannot reasonably be funded from FTA formula program allocations or State and/or local resources. In evaluating applications, FTA will consider, among other factors, certain project-specific criteria as outlined below:
i. For vessel replacement or rehabilitation projects:
• The age of the asset to be replaced or rehabilitated by the proposed project, relative to its useful life.
• Condition and performance of the asset to be replaced by the proposed project, as ascertained through inspections or otherwise, if available.
ii. For infrastructure (facility) improvements or related-equipment acquisitions:
• The age of the facility or equipment to be rehabilitated or replaced relative to its useful life.
• The degree to which the proposed project will enable the agency to improve the maintenance and condition of the agency's fleet and/or other related ferry assets.
iii. For expansion or new service requests (vessel or facility-related):
• The degree to which the proposed project addresses a current capacity constraint that is limiting the ability of the agency to provide reliable service, meet ridership demands, or maintain vessels and related-equipment.
• The degree the proposed new service is supported by ridership demand.
iv. Additional consideration will be given to projects in which the beneficiary of the award contributes a greater share of the total project costs.
Applications will be evaluated based on how the ferry project will improve the safety and state of good repair of the system or provide additional transportation options to potential riders within the service area. FTA will consider potential benefits such as increased reliability of service, improved operations or maintenance capabilities, or expanded mobility options, intermodal connections, and economic benefits to the community.
Applications will be evaluated based on whether the proposed project is consistent with local and regional planning documents and identified priorities. In particular, FTA will evaluate applications based on the quality and extent to which they assess whether the project is consistent with the transit priorities identified in the long-range transportation plan and/or the State and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (STIP/TIP). Proposers should note if the project could not be included in the financially constrained STIP or TIP due to lack of funding; however, if selected, the project must be in the federally approved STIP before grant award.
FTA encourages applicants to demonstrate local support by including letters of support from State Departments of Transportation, local transit agencies and other relevant stakeholders. In an area with both ferry and other public transit operators, FTA will evaluate whether project proposals demonstrate coordination with and support of other related projects within the proposer's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or the geographic region within which the proposed project will operate.
FTA will evaluate the extent to which the project is ready to be implemented. This will involve assessing whether the project is a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or if required environmental work has been initiated or completed for construction projects requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
FTA will consider whether project implementation plans are ready, including initial design of facility projects, the TIP/STIP can be amended (evidenced by MPO/State endorsement), whether local match is available, whether the project funds can be obligated within 12 months from time of selection, and whether the project will require a Buy America waiver.
Applicants must demonstrate that they have the technical, legal and financial capacity to undertake the project. FTA will review relevant oversight assessments and records to determine whether there are any outstanding legal, technical, or financial issues with the applicant that would affect the outcome of the proposed project.
FTA will evaluate the degree to which the ferry service to be supported by the proposed project provides service that is integrated with other regional modes of transportation, including but not limited to: Rail, bus, intercity bus, and private transportation providers. Supporting documentation should include data that demonstrates the number of trips (passengers and vehicles), the number of walk-on passengers, and the frequency of transfers to other modes (if applicable).
In addition to other FTA staff that may review the proposals, a technical evaluation committee will evaluate proposals based on the published evaluation criteria. Members of the technical evaluation committee and other FTA staff may request additional information from applicants, if necessary. Based on the findings of the technical evaluation committee, the FTA Administrator will determine the final selection of projects for program funding. FTA may consider geographic diversity, diversity in the size of the transit systems receiving funding, and/or the applicant's receipt of other competitive awards in determining the allocation of program funds. FTA may give additional consideration to projects in which the beneficiary of the award contributes a greater share of the total project costs. FTA may consider capping the amount a single applicant may receive.
Subsequent to an announcement by the FTA Administrator of the final project selections, which will be posted on the FTA Web site, FTA will publish a list of the selected projects, Federal award amounts, and recipients in the
At the time the project selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement.
Funds under the Ferry program are available to designated recipients or eligible direct recipients of Section 5307 funds. There is no minimum or maximum grant award amount; however, FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible. Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding. Due to funding limitations, proposers that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested. In those cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed projects are still viable and can be completed with the amount awarded.
FTA will issue specific guidance to recipients regarding pre-award authority at the time of selection. FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected and even then there are Federal requirements that must be met before costs are incurred. For more information about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the FY 2017 Apportionment Notice published on January 19, 2017.
If selected, awardees will apply for a grant through FTA's Transit Award Management System (TrAMS). All Ferry recipients are subject to the grant requirements of Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grant program, including those of FTA Circular 9030.1. All recipients must follow the Award Management Requirements Circular 5010.1E, and the labor protections of 49 U.S.C. 5333(b). All competitive grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the congressional notification and release process. Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
FTA requires that all capital procurements meet FTA's Buy America requirements that require all iron, steel, or manufactured products be produced in the U.S., to help create and protect manufacturing jobs in the U.S. The Ferry program will have a significant economic impact toward meeting the objectives of the Buy America law. The FAST Act amended the Buy America requirements, 49 U.S.C. 5323(j), to provide for a phased increase in the domestic content for rolling stock. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, the cost of components and subcomponents produced in the United States must be more than 60 percent of the cost of all components. For FY 2018 and FY 2019,
Projects that include ferry acquisitions are subject to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program regulations at 49 CFR part 26 and ferry manufacturers must be certified Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (TVMs) to be eligible to bid on an FTA-assisted ferry procurement. The rule requires that, prior to bidding on any FTA-assisted vehicle procurement, entities that manufacture ferries must submit a DBE Program plan and annual goal methodology to FTA. The FTA will then issue a TVM concurrence/certification letter. Grant recipients must verify each entity's compliance before accepting its bid. A list of certified TVMs is posted on FTA's Web page at
FTA encourages proposers to notify the appropriate State Departments of Transportation and MPOs in areas likely to be served by the project funds made available under these initiatives and programs. Selected projects must be incorporated into the long-range plans and transportation improvement programs of States and metropolitan areas before they are eligible for FTA funding.
The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, directives, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file.
Post-award reporting requirements include the electronic submission of Federal Financial Reports and Milestone Progress Reports in FTA's electronic grants management system.
For further information concerning this notice, please contact the Ferry program manager Vanessa Williams by phone at 202-366-4818, or by email at
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” FTA will consider applications for funding only from eligible recipients for eligible projects listed in Section C. Complete applications must be submitted through
Contact information for FTA's regional offices can be found on FTA's Web site at
1. What is a designated recipient?
2. What is a direct recipient?
3. Is there a list of designated recipients under Section 5307?
4. How can an entity determine whether it operates within the area of a Census-designated urbanized area?
5. Can I apply if I am not currently a direct recipient?
6. How can I apply if I am not an eligible direct recipient or designated recipient?
7. Can State DOTs apply on behalf of public agencies within the state in which they administer FTA funds?
8. If an agency previously received 5307 funds but now receives 5311 funds, can they still apply?
9. Is a new start eligible under the Ferry program?
10. Are public car-ferries eligible?
11. Is the construction of a ferry maintenance facility an eligible capital project?
12. Is a new vessel construction funded by FTA grants considered a public work or rolling stock and therefore subject to Davis Bacon?
13. Does the term “terminals & related infrastructure” projects include the floating docks and access ramps where the passengers board?
14. Is there a difference between the FTA's Passenger Ferry Grant Program and FHWA's Ferry Boat Formula Grant Funding Program?
15. What is the grant process after an entity is selected?
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Automatic Enrollment Individual Retirement Accounts (Auto-IRAs).
Written comments should be received on or before October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before September 22, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health 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 October 23, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
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, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA'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.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health 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 October 23, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
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, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA'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.
Baseline Survey:
Lifestyle Survey:
Baseline Survey: 333,334 hours.
Lifestyle Survey: 750,000 hours.
Baseline Survey: 20 minutes.
Lifestyle Survey: 45 minutes.
Baseline Survey: 100,000.
Lifestyle Survey: 100,000.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Executive Committee of the VA Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee (NAC) will meet October 18-19, 2017, at the Fleet Reserve Association National Headquarters, First Floor Meeting Room, 125 North West Street, Alexandria, Virginia. On October 18, 2017, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. On October 19, 2017, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 12:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The Committee, comprised of fifty-four major Veteran, civic, and service organizations, advises the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Health, on the coordination and promotion of volunteer activities and strategic partnerships within VA health care facilities, in the community, and on matters related to volunteerism and charitable giving. The Executive Committee consists of 20 representatives from the NAC member organizations.
On October 18, agenda topics will include: NAC goals and objectives; review of minutes from the April 19, 2017, Executive Committee meeting; VAVS update on the Voluntary Service program's activities; VHA update, update on strategic partnerships; Parke Board update; evaluations of the 2017 NAC annual meeting; review of membership criteria and process; and plans for 2018 NAC annual meeting (to include workshops and plenary sessions).
On October 19, agenda topics will include: Subcommittee reports; review of standard operating procedures; review of Fiscal Year 2017 organization data; 2019 NAC annual meeting plans; and any new business.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Mrs. Sabrina C. Clark, Designated Federal Officer, Voluntary Service Office (10B2A), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or email at
| 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 |