| Page Range | 41321-41500 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 41343 - 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule | |
| 82 FR 41499 - Restoring State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement's Access to Life-Saving Equipment and Resources | |
| 82 FR 41396 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 41365 - Extension of Transition Period and Delay of Applicability Dates; Best Interest Contract Exemption (PTE 2016-01); Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02); Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters (PTE 84-24) | |
| 82 FR 41398 - Renewal of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee Charter | |
| 82 FR 41321 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Nonappropriated Fund; Federal Wage System Wage Areas | |
| 82 FR 41414 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 41415 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 41463 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Reinstatement Approval of Information Collection: Notice of Proposed Outdoor Laser Operations | |
| 82 FR 41461 - Industry Advisory Group: Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 82 FR 41414 - Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Wolff-Alport Superfund Site, Queens County, New York | |
| 82 FR 41379 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 41376 - Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Rule Part 225, Control of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources | |
| 82 FR 41386 - Approval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Washoe Oxygenated Fuels Program | |
| 82 FR 41392 - Notice of Request for Revision of an Approved Information Collection (Salmonella Initiative Program) | |
| 82 FR 41358 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 41462 - Patriot Woods Railroad, LLC-Abandonment Exemption-in Cowlitz County, Wash.; Columbia & Cowlitz Railway, LLC-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Cowlitz County, Wash | |
| 82 FR 41356 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 41397 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 41393 - Notice of Request for Revision of an Approved Information Collection (Public Health Information System) | |
| 82 FR 41391 - Notice of Request for Renewal of an Approved Information Collection (Accreditation of Laboratories, Transactions, and Exemptions) | |
| 82 FR 41421 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges | |
| 82 FR 41398 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41423 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Alaska Guide Service Evaluation | |
| 82 FR 41343 - Revisions to Public Inspection File Requirements-Broadcaster Correspondence File and Cable Principal Headend Location | |
| 82 FR 41461 - Columbia & Cowlitz Railway, LLC-Abandonment Exemption-in Cowlitz County, Wash | |
| 82 FR 41461 - Wisconsin Central Ltd.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Waupaca County, Wis | |
| 82 FR 41430 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Department of Labor Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 41428 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Employee Retirement Income Security Act Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1981-8, Investment of Plan Assets in Certain Types of Short-Term Investments | |
| 82 FR 41427 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities | |
| 82 FR 41429 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages | |
| 82 FR 41432 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41416 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support for Version Update of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities | |
| 82 FR 41417 - Policy Clarification and Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions for Ultrasonic Diathermy Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 41418 - Use of Real-World Evidence To Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
| 82 FR 41401 - Cuyama Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 41400 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 41399 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 41364 - Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food: Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 41420 - Peer Review of Draft NTP Approach to Genomic Dose-Response Modeling; Availability of Documents; Request for Comments; Notice of Expert Panel Meeting | |
| 82 FR 41397 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 41396 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 41400 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 41424 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the Outer Continental Shelf | |
| 82 FR 41464 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; EEO Complaint Forms | |
| 82 FR 41321 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 9, Revision 1, and Amendment No. 10; Corrections | |
| 82 FR 41452 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a New Market Maker Peg Order | |
| 82 FR 41395 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41451 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 82 FR 41388 - Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2017 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits | |
| 82 FR 41333 - Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, North Shore, Oahu, HI-Recovery Operations | |
| 82 FR 41438 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Options on Index Credit Default Swaps | |
| 82 FR 41454 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework and ICC's Stress Testing Framework | |
| 82 FR 41433 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Model Risk Management Framework | |
| 82 FR 41446 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Transaction Fees Pursuant to Rule 15.110 | |
| 82 FR 41457 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, To Increase the Position Limits for Options on Certain ETFs | |
| 82 FR 41414 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 41431 - Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41401 - Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System | |
| 82 FR 41342 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference; Correction | |
| 82 FR 41335 - Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Louisville Miscellaneous Rule Revisions | |
| 82 FR 41466 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2017 Annual Review | |
| 82 FR 41344 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2017-18 Season | |
| 82 FR 41326 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 41331 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 41323 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 41329 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 41337 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference | |
| 82 FR 41359 - Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands in Alaska |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Rural Utilities Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Southeastern Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Correcting amendment.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a final rule in the
Effective August 31, 2017.
Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2838 or by email at
In a final rule published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Correcting amendments.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a direct final rule on January 6, 2016, amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec) HI-STORM 100 Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 9, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1014. The direct final rule was effective on March 21, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the NRC published a direct final rule again amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec HI-STORM 100 Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” to include Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. That direct final rule was effective on May 31, 2016. The technical specifications (TS) for both the Holtec HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Amendments No. 9, Revision 1, and No. 10 included minor editorial and non-substantive errors. The purpose of this action is correct these errors.
The correction is effective August 31, 2017.
Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-2015-0156 and NRC-2015-0270 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John-Chau Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0262; email:
On June 23, 2017, the NRC received a request from Holtec to correct minor editorial and non-substantive errors in Appendix A, “Technical Specifications for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System,” of CoC No. 1014. In its letter, Holtec stated that it identified a typographical error that should be corrected. Specifically, Table 3-2 refers to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for per cell decay heat load limits for the “MPC-68/68F/68FF/68M”, but Tables 3-3 and 3-4 omitted the MPC-68M.
The NRC previously reviewed and approved the use of model MPC-68M in Amendment No. 8 to CoC No. 1014 (which was superseded by Amendment No. 8 Revision 1). In Amendment No. 9, the NRC added Tables 3-3 and 3-4 and, in Table 3-2, added a reference to decay heat loads in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The technical specifications for Amendment No, 9, Revision 1 (which superseded Amendment No. 9), and Amendment No. 10 include the same Tables 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 as were in Amendment No. 9.
The reference in Appendix A, Table 3-2, refers to Table 3-3 and 3-4 for the per cell heat load limits for the `MPC-68/68F/68FF/68M.' However, Tables 3-3 and 3-4 only have rows for `MPC-68/68F/68FF,' and do not specifically include the MPC-68M. Since the decay heat load, whether uniform or regionalized, for all 68 cell Multi-purpose Canisters (MPCs) are identical, and the NRC previously reviewed and approved this heat load, it is evident that the omission of 68M in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 was an editorial error. Although this error is editorial, and has no impact on the loading of MPCs, it is still appropriate to correct the error in Amendment No. 9, Revision 1, and Amendment No. 10. Correcting this error would not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC. This document corrects these errors.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on this correction because it will have no substantive impact and is of a minor and administrative nature dealing with a correction to a CFR section related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. Specifically, this amendment is to correct minor editorial errors. This correction does not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Also, the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC are not changed. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the NRC finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to make this correction effective upon publication.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of ice accretion on the airplane wing due to the failure of certain anti-ice piccolo tubes in the wing outboard slats. This AD requires repetitive inspections of each anti-ice piccolo tube and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 5, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0149, dated July 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
Occurrences were reported of ice accretion on the wing, due to failure of the affected anti-ice piccolo tubes Part Number (P/N) FGFB725102. Investigation results indicated that some wing piccolo tubes P/N FGFB725102 could have manufacturing defects in their welded parts, which may have caused the rupture of the tubes, due to fatigue.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to undetected significant ice accretion on the wing, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, [Dassault Aviation] DA issued Service Bulletin (SB) F2000-431 Revision 1 and SB F2000EX-391 Revision 1 (hereafter referred to collectively as `the applicable SB' in this [EASA] AD) to provide instructions for endoscopic inspection of the tubes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of each wing outboard slat piccolo tube [for discrepancies,
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have added paragraph (j) to this AD to explain that although Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-431, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-391, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; specify to submit a report of crack findings to Dassault, this AD does not require a report. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin F2000-431, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-391, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016. The service information describes procedures for endoscopic inspections of the anti-ice piccolo tube on each wing outboard slat, and replacement or re-identification of affected anti-ice piccolo tubes and outboard slats. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 348 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of ice accretion on the airplane wing due to the failure of certain anti-ice piccolo tubes in the wing outboard slats. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct manufacturing defects in the anti-ice piccolo tubes in the wing outboard slats. This condition could lead to undetected significant ice accretion on a wing, resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, an affected anti-ice piccolo tube meets at least one of the conditions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Has part number (P/N) FGFB725102 (left-hand side (LH)) or P/N FGFB726102 (right-hand side (RH)).
(ii) Is installed on a wing outboard slat having a part number identified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(2) If the outboard slat part number is identified in table 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, the anti-ice piccolo tube is not affected because the outboard slat has already been retrofitted with a new stiffened anti-ice piccolo tube, and no action is required by this AD for that piccolo tube.
If an anti-ice piccolo tube has been determined to be affected, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 3 to paragraph (h) of this AD, do an endoscopic inspection for discrepancies,
If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the affected anti-ice piccolo tube with a new or serviceable part, and replace or re-identify the affected wing outboard slat as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-431, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; or Service Bulletin F2000EX-391, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; as applicable.
Although Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-431, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-391, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; specify to submit a report of crack findings to Dassault, this AD does not require a report.
Modification of an airplane by installing a new or serviceable anti-ice piccolo tube, and replacing or re-identifying the affected wing outboard slat, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-431, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; or Service Bulletin F2000EX-391, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016; as applicable.
As of the time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable, no person may install on any airplane an affected anti-ice piccolo tube or an affected outboard slat.
(1) For an airplane that, on the effective date of this AD, has an affected anti-ice piccolo tube or an affected outboard slat installed: After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) For an airplane that, on the effective date of this AD, does not have an affected anti-ice piccolo tube or an affected outboard slat installed: As of the effective date of this AD.
Installation on an airplane of an anti-ice piccolo tube having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) or paragraph (k) of this AD, as applicable, provided the conditions in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD are met.
(1) The anti-ice piccolo tube part number must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(2) The installation of the anti-ice piccolo tube must be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0149, dated July 25, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-431, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016.
(ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-391, Revision 1, dated June 6, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-05-03, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2012-05-03 required modifying the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing. This AD requires additional work to seal those drainage holes in the wing access panels. This AD was prompted by a design review following a ground fire
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of April 24, 2012 (77 FR 16143, March 20, 2012).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-05-03, Amendment 39-16975 (77 FR 16143, March 20, 2012) (“AD 2012-05-03”). AD 2012-05-03 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2016. This service information divides the affected airplanes into 10 groups.
For all groups, this service information describes procedures for modifying the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing. The modification consists of changing fluid dam assemblies at wing outboard leading edge station (OLES) 1250, and installing seal assemblies at OLES 1185. Additionally, this service information specifies changing the lower leading edge wing panels through repairs and installation of parts.
For Groups 1 through 6 airplanes, this service information also specifies installing fluid dam assemblies at wing OLES 770.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 258 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012-05-03, Amendment 39-16975 (77 FR 16143, March 20, 2012) (“AD 2012-05-03”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a design review following a ground fire incident and reports of flammable fluid leaks from the wing leading edge area onto the engine exhaust area. We are issuing this AD to prevent flammable fluid from leaking onto the engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-05-03, with revised service information. Within 60 months after April 24, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-05-03), modify the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing, in accordance with all applicable parts of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011; or Revision 2, dated February 22, 2016.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-05-03, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for modification of the fluid drain path required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before April 24, 2012, using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010.
For airplanes on which the actions specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010; or Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011; were done: Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, fill the drainage holes in wing panels 521EB and 621EB with sealant, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2016.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-05-03 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(5) and (l)(6) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 5, 2017.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 16143, March 20, 2012).
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This AD was prompted by a discovery of noncompliant rivets in the flight deck upper skin. This AD requires replacement of noncompliant rivets. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 5, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0124, dated June 22, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an internal review of the manufacturing files, it was found that 20 rivets installed on the cockpit [(flight deck)] upper skin are not compliant with the original type design. Those 20 MGPL type rivets have a shank longer than necessary and, in case of a bird strike under maximum energy impact, the cockpit upper skin deformation would lead to interference between the rivet shank and the cockpit mounted overhead panel.
This condition, if not corrected, could affect the functioning of essential flight control systems, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) F7X-176, providing instructions for replacement of the [noncompliant] rivets.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal of affected rivets and replacement with serviceable [solid-type] rivets compliant with original type design.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletin 7X-176, dated February 3, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane by replacing certain blind rivets installed on the flight deck skin panel with solid-type rivets. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course
We estimate that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 15 through 89 inclusive, 92 through 94 inclusive, 97 through 101 inclusive, 105, and 106.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard practices/structures.
This AD was prompted by a discovery of noncompliant rivets in the flight deck upper skin. We are issuing this AD to prevent interference between the rivet shank and the flight deck mounted overhead panel when the flight deck upper skin deforms due to impact (
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, modify the airplane by replacing certain MGPL-type rivets installed on the flight deck skin panel with solid type-rivets, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-176, dated February 3, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0124, dated June 22, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-176, dated February 3, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of damage found at the lower trailing edge panels of the left wing and a broken fuse pin of the landing gear beam end fitting. This AD requires repetitive replacement or inspection of certain fuse pins, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 5, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2360, dated January 20, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive replacement or inspection of certain fuse pins, and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 158 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 5, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of damage found at the lower trailing edge panels of the left wing and a broken fuse pin of the landing gear beam end fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the fuse pin of the wing landing gear beam end fitting. A broken fuse pin will not support the wing landing gear beam, causing damage to the surrounding structure, including flight control cables and hydraulic systems, which could result in loss of controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2360, dated January 20, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as required for compliance (“RC”) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2360, dated January 20, 2017.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2360, dated January 20, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2360, dated January 20, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters of the North Shore of Oahu, Hawaii, near Ka'Ena Point. The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters extending 3 nautical miles in all directions from position 21°34.88′ N.; 158°17.90′ W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with ongoing operations to salvage a downed helicopter in this area. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 31, 2017 until 8:00 a.m. on September 15, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 22, 2017, until 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, call or email Lieutenant Commander John Bannon, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at (808) 541-4359 or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this salvage effort, and therefore publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to public interest.
On August 16, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, North Shore Oahu, HI docket number USCG-2016-0507, establishing a safety zone in the navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, North Shore, Oahu, HI. The purpose of the safety zone was to provide for the safety of search and rescue efforts for an August 15, 2017 downed helicopter off the North Shore, Oahu, HI, near Ka'Ena Point. Additionally, the safety zone was necessary to map the debris field and crash location. The new TFR adjusts the safety zone to complete all salvage and recovery operations after the completion of the search and rescue operations.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On August 15, 2017, the Coast Guard was informed of a helicopter crash off the North Shore of Oahu, Hawaii, near Ka'Ena Point. The Coast Guard COTP Sector Honolulu has determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage operations constitute a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone during ongoing salvage operations.
This rule is effective from August 22, 2017 through 8:00 a.m. on September 15, 2017, or until salvage operations are complete, whichever is earlier. If the safety zone is terminated prior to 8:00 a.m. on September 15, 2017, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a broadcast notice to mariners. The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters extending 3 nautical miles in all directions around the location of ongoing salvage operations near position: 21°34.88′ N.; 158°17.90′ W. This zone extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. The zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters from potential hazards associated with the salvage operations of one downed helicopter in this area. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP or his designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact only a small designated area of the waters off of Ka'Ena Point where vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. The safety zone is limited in size and duration, and mariners may request to enter the zone by contacting the COTP.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR part 165.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.
(3) Persons desiring to transit the safety zone identified in paragraph (a) of this section may contact the COTP at the Command Center telephone number (808) 842-2600 and (808) 842-2601, fax (808) 842-2642 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to seek permission to transit the zone. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while in the zone.
(4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
On August 29, 2012, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District or Jefferson County). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving several changes that modify the District's air quality regulations as incorporated into the SIP. The changes to the regulatory portion of the SIP that EPA is approving pertain to definitional changes, administrative amendments, open burning, standards of performance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA is approving these changes because the Commonwealth and Jefferson County have demonstrated that these changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This rule is effective October 2, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0022. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
On August 29, 2012, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA for approval that
This action will update Kentucky's acronyms and make changes to other regulations approved into the SIP. The changes made to the regulations other than definitions are administrative in nature, including updating internal references. In a proposed rulemaking published on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31736), EPA proposed to approve Kentucky's August 29, 2012, SIP revision. The details of Kentucky's August 29, 2012, SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before August 9, 2017. EPA did not receive any comments on the proposed action.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporate by reference Jefferson County Regulation 1.03—
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
EPA is approving Kentucky's August 29, 2012, SIP revision, submitted on behalf of the District, because it is consistent with the CAA. EPA believes that all of these changes are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meet the regulatory requirements pertaining to SIPs, including CAA section 110(l), since these changes, with the exception to definition changes, are administrative in nature and will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 30, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Reporting, Volatile organic compounds and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revised text reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notice of administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Georgia state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by Georgia and approved by EPA. This update affects the materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the EPA Regional Office.
This action is effective August 31, 2017.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; and the National Archives and Records Administration. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at
Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP and are identified in part 52 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the state regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a state implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action if necessary.
The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on proposed revisions containing new and/or revised state regulations. A submission from a state can revise one or more rules in their entirety or portions of rules, or even change a single word. The state indicates the changes in the submission (such as, by using redline/strikethrough) and EPA then takes action on the requested changes. EPA establishes a docket for its actions using a unique Docket Identification Number, which is listed in each action. These dockets and the complete submission are available for viewing on
On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference, into the Code of Federal Regulations, materials approved by EPA into each state SIP. These changes revised the format for the identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part 52, streamlined the mechanisms for announcing EPA approval of revisions to a SIP, and streamlined the mechanisms for EPA's updating of the IBR information contained for each SIP in 40 CFR part 52. The revised procedures also called for EPA to maintain “SIP Compilations” that contain the federally-approved regulations and source specific permits submitted by each state agency. These SIP Compilations are contained in 3-ring binders and are updated primarily on an annual basis. Under the revised procedures, EPA must periodically publish an informational document in the rules section of the
This action represents EPA's publication of the Georgia SIP Compilation update, appearing in 40 CFR part 52. In addition, notice is provided of the following corrections to Table (c) of section 52.570, as described below:
A. Under the “State effective date” and “EPA approval date” changing the 2-digit year to reflect a 4-digit year (for consistency) and correcting numerous CFR citations to reflect the first page of the preamble as opposed to the regulatory text page.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in the section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs and corrects typographical errors appearing in the
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
EPA also believes that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. This is because prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Georgia SIP compilations previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA is not available.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b)
(2) EPA Region 4 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated State rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region 4 EPA Office at 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. To obtain the material, please call (404) 562-9022. You may inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to January 1, 2017, for Georgia at the National Archives and Records Administration. For information on the
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule; administrative change, that was published in the
This rule is effective on August 31, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-2017-NJ1. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3381.
EPA approved a final rule; administrative change published on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30758). In that document, EPA approved the revised format for materials submitted by New Jersey that have been incorporated by reference into its SIP. The regulations and other materials affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by New Jersey and approved by EPA as SIP revisions. In that approval, EPA erroneously added the incorrect docket number. In this notice, the docket
In the final rule published in the
1. On page 30758, first column, “EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060” is corrected to read “EPA-R02-2017-NJ1”.
In rule document 2016-28564 appearing on pages 89188-89274 in the issue of December 9, 2016, make the following correction:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, changes to FCC Form 303-S (Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License) associated with the Commission's decision in
The changes to FCC Form 303-S required as a result of the rule adopted at 82 FR 11406, February 23, 2017, are effective on August 31, 2017.
For additional information contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on August 11, 2017, OMB approved the changes to FCC Form 303-S ordered by the Commission in its
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval, on August 11, 2017, for the changes to FCC Form 303-S. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
47 U.S.C. 308(d) they also will not be required to file a summary of correspondence received regarding violent programming with their renewal application. The Commission directed the Media Bureau to revise the renewal application form and instructions consistent with this decision.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Interim final rule.
This rule prescribes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands. This rule allows the establishment of season bag limits and, thus, harvest at levels compatible with populations and habitat conditions in recognition of their authority to regulate hunting under established guidelines. The proposed rule for the 2017-18 season was delayed, requiring this interim final rule to allow Tribes to begin hunting in September. This interim rule will be replaced when the proposed rule is finalized.
This rule takes effect on September 1, 2017. Comments on this rule must be received by September 21, 2017.
You may submit comments on this interim rule and the related proposed rule (see 82 FR 39716, August 22, 2017) by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703
In the August 22, 2017,
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10-September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada.
Because some tribal seasons begin September 1, before the September 21, 2017, closing date of the comment period and finalization of the August 22,
The provisions in this interim rule are the same as those set forth in our September 9, 2016, final rule (81 FR 62404) except that, in this interim rule, the season opening and closing dates are updated for the 2017-18 hunting seasons. In one case where we received a 2017-18 proposal from a Tribe (Klamath) that was not included in the 2016 final rule, we have included that proposal in these interim final rule regulations using the Tribe's approved seasons from a previous season's final rule for 2014-15 (79 FR 57405-57406, September 24, 2014). In other words, although the dates are different, the date ranges, bag limits, and other restrictions are identical to the previous final rule. We are using the provisions of the September 9, 2016, final rule (81 FR 62404) as the provisions for this interim final rule as the 2016 rule is the most recent Tribal final rule and the public is familiar with it, having already commented on it with the exception of the specific 2017-18 season dates. To summarize the 2016 final rule process: On May 27, 2016, we published proposed special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2016-17 hunting season for certain Indian Tribes (81 FR 34226). The comment period for the May 27, 2016, proposed rule closed on June 27, 2016. We addressed the nine comments received in a final rule of September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62404). That final rule established regulatory provisions that are codified in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 20.110 and are the basis for this interim final rule.
Moreover, in the August 22, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 39716), we proposed changes to the regulations in 50 CFR 20.110 that would establish in most cases substantially similar season opening and closing dates that are set forth in this interim rule. The proposed regulatory revisions are the result of a collaborative process between the Service and the Tribes. Comments are due on the proposed rule on September 21, 2017. Following our consideration of the comments received, we will issue a final rule that will replace the regulatory provisions in this interim rule. The public is also welcome to comment on this interim final rule during the comment period for the proposed rule that closes September 21.
With the changeover in administrations, the proposed rule was delayed, preventing issuance of a final rule in time for all Tribes' normal hunting seasons. We do not intend to use an interim final rule again for this purpose as doing so prevents Tribes from using provisions that they may have proposed at the beginning of the hunting season. We regret any confusion that this delay in the normal rulemaking process may cause. In future Tribal rulemaking actions, we expect to have a final rule in place before the start of the Tribes' hunting seasons.
The interim final rule described here sets migratory bird hunting regulations on certain Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands for the 2017-18 season. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for migratory game bird species on reservations and ceded territories. When the August 22, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 39716) is finalized, that rule will replace this interim final rule. The new final rule may have extended dates, different bag limits, and other provisions compared to this interim final rule.
Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under
This action is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to routine hunting and fishing activities.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that the annual migratory bird hunting regulations, of which this rule is one part, are significant because these regulations have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We will develop our final rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). We used this analysis again for the 2017-18 season. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the 2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13, the 2014-15, the 2015-16, the 2016-17, and the 2017-18 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule is part of a larger rulemaking effort that would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
This rule does not contain any new information collection that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires 5/31/2018).
• 1018-0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 8/31/2020). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes. This rulemaking process is collaborative with
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. Because of changes in the process for this season's rules, publication of the August 22, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 39716) was delayed, requiring publication of this interim final rule.
The August 22, 2017, proposed rule provides the public the opportunity to comment. The public, having commented on last year's final rule (81 FR 62404; September 9, 2016) and other previous final rules, also had an opportunity to comment on the substance of the current interim final rule, and we addressed the nine comments received in the 2016 final rule. Furthermore, these tribal regulations have generally been similar the past several years, and with no significant controversy from the public.
It would be impracticable to finalize the August 22 proposed rule by September 1. But without this interim rule, the hunting of migratory birds on ceded and reservation lands during the normal fall seasons, which in some cases begin on September 1 each year, would be in violation of the MBTA. To respect the various Tribal treaties between the Tribal nations and the United States that allow for the treaty right to hunt waterfowl on these ceded lands, either for their cultural or religious exercise, sustenance, and/or materials for cultural use (
In addition, we have good cause to waive the standard 30-day effective date for this interim final rule consistent with section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and this rule will, therefore, take effect immediately upon publication. This rule relieves a restriction, as just described. Delaying the effective date for 30 days would have detrimental effects on individuals seeking to hunt on ceded and reservation lands during the seasons that in some cases begin September 1 and on the businesses that support this activity.
Moreover, in the proposed rule that published in the
We invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the interim final rule during the comment period for our proposed special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2017-18 hunting season for certain Indian tribes, published August 22, 2017, in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this interim final rule and the August 22, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 39716), will be available for public inspection on
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we amend part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j;
(
Unless specifically provided for below, all of the regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply to the seasons listed herein.
(a) [Reserved.]
(b)
(c)
1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License.
2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.
3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting.
4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas.
5. There are no possession limits for migratory birds. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.
(d)
(e)
The 2017-18 waterfowl hunting season regulations apply to all treaty areas (except where noted):
A. All tribal members are required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.
B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members are required to comply with tribal codes that are no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the
C. Particular regulations of note include:
1. Nontoxic shot is required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
2. Tribal members in each zone must comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
3. There are no possession limits, with the exception of 2 swans (in the aggregate) and 25 rails (in the aggregate). For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded lands are considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as taken on reservation lands. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands do not
4. The baiting restrictions included in the respective section 10.05(2)(h) of the model ceded territory conservation codes will be amended to include language which parallels that in place for nontribal members as published at 64 FR 29799, June 3, 1999.
5. There are no shell limit restrictions.
6. Hunting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
General conditions are as follows:
A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2016-17 hunting license.
B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. Shooting hours will be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
C. Particular regulations of note include:
(1) Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
(2) Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.
E. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limits.
(k)
(l)
(m) [Reserved.]
(n)
All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 apply. The following restrictions also apply:
1. As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 0.25 miles of an occupied area.
2. Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl.
3. The Cape Flattery area is open to waterfowl hunting, except in designated wilderness areas, or within 1 mile of Cape Flattery Trail, or in any area that is closed to hunting by another ordinance or regulation.
4. The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited.
5. Steel or bismuth shot only for waterfowl is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited.
6. The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl.
7. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
8. Open hunting areas are: GMUs 601 (Hoko), a portion of the 602 (Dickey) encompassing the area north of a line between Norwegian Memorial and east to Highway 101, and 603 (Pysht).
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u) [Reserved.]
(v)
(w) [Reserved.]
(x)
(y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason General category retention limit adjustment.
The Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) General category is currently closed and will reopen on September 1, 2017. NMFS is updating the adjustment of the BFT General category daily retention limit that will take effect beginning September 1, 2017, from the recently adopted two large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip to one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip. This action is based on updated information about the availability of BFT and quota after considering the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments and applies to Atlantic Tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels when fishing commercially for BFT.
Effective September 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. On December 19, 2016, NMFS published an inseason action transferring 16.3 mt of BFT quota from the December 2017 subquota to the January 2017 subquota period (81 FR 91873). For 2017, NMFS also transferred 40 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective March 2, resulting in an adjusted General category quota of 506.7 mt (82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017).
The default General category retention limit is one large medium or giant BFT (measuring 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length (CFL) or greater) per vessel per day/trip (§ 635.23(a)(2)).
Thus far this year, NMFS adjusted the daily retention limit for the 2017 January subquota period from the default level of one large medium or giant BFT to three large medium BFT (81 FR 91873, December 19, 2016). NMFS closed the January 2017 fishery on March 29 (82 FR 16136, April 3, 2017). NMFS adjusted the daily retention limit from the default level of one large medium or giant BFT to four large medium or giant BFT for the June through August 2017 subquota period (82 FR 22616, May 17, 2017). Effective August 5, 2017, NMFS reduced the daily retention limit from four to two large medium or giant BFT for the remainder of 2017, and indicated that, if needed, additional adjustments would be published in the
Under § 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of five per vessel based on consideration of the relevant criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS has considered the relevant regulatory determination criteria and their applicability to the General category BFT retention limit for the September, October through November, and December subquota time periods. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:
NMFS considered the catches and catch rates of the General category quota to date (including during the summer/fall and winter fisheries in the last several years), and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii) and (ix)). NMFS previously considered catch and catch rate information from July and August and determined that a two-fish limit was appropriate for the remainder of the year. Subsequently, however, a large number of landings occurred in a short time period, increasing the overall daily catch rates and indicating increased availability of fish on the fishing grounds, and participation in the fishery. Through the August 16, 2017 General category closure date, 2017 General category landings were approximately 433 mt, which is 93 and 85 percent of the annual base and adjusted 2017 General category quotas, respectively. Landings from June 1 through the August 16 closure date were 325.3 mt, representing 139 percent of the General category subquota for the June 1 through August 31 period. NMFS anticipates that commercial-size BFT will be readily available to vessels fishing under the General category quota. If the catch rates of approximately 6 mt per day under the two-fish daily limit established in the August 7
Another relevant criterion is the effects of catch rates in one area precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the category's quota (§ 635.27(a)(8)(viii)). NMFS anticipates that 108.38 mt of underharvest of the 2016 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2017 to the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations, in the coming weeks. This increases the likelihood that General category quota will remain available through the end of 2017, provided retention limits are managed accordingly. Last fall, General category landings were relatively high due to a combination of fish availability, favorable fishing conditions, and higher daily retention limits (five fish per day for June 1 through October 8, four fish effective October 9 through October 16, and two fish effective October 17 through November 3). Given these conditions, NMFS transferred 125 mt from the Reserve category (81 FR 70369, October 12, 2016) and later transferred another 85 mt (18 mt from the Harpoon category and 67 mt from the Reserve category) (81 FR 71639, October 18, 2016). Nevertheless, NMFS had to close the 2016 General category fishery effective November 4 to prevent further overharvest of the adjusted General category quota. For 2017, NMFS again intends to provide General category participants in all areas and time periods opportunities to harvest the General category quota without exceeding it, through active inseason management such as retention limit adjustments and/or the timing and amount of quota transfers (based on consideration of the determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments), while extending the season as long as practicable.
Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by General category fishermen and provided by BFT dealers continue to provide NMFS with valuable data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Prolonged opportunities to land BFT over the longest time-period allowable would support the collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.
NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and overfishing and the effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the FMP (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). The adjusted retention limit would be consistent with the quotas established and analyzed in the BFT quota final rule (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, and is not expected to negatively impact stock health or to affect the stock in ways not already analyzed in those documents. It is also important that NMFS limit landings to the subquotas both to adhere to the FMP quota allocations and to ensure that landings are as consistent as possible with the pattern of fishing mortality (
Another principal consideration in setting the retention limit is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full General category quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)).
Based on these considerations, NMFS has determined that a one-fish General category retention limit is warranted for the remainder of the year. It would provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the U.S. quota of BFT without exceeding it, while maintaining an equitable distribution of fishing opportunities, help optimize the ability of the General category to harvest its available quota, allow collection of a broad range of data for stock monitoring purposes, and be consistent with the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. Therefore, NMFS adjusts the General category retention limit from two to one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip, effective when the General category fishery reopens on September 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas.
Regardless of the duration of a fishing trip, no more than a single day's retention limit may be possessed, retained, or landed. For example (and specific to the limit that will apply beginning September 1, 2017), whether a vessel fishing under the General category limit takes a two-day trip or makes two trips in one day, the daily limit of one fish may not be exceeded upon landing. This General category retention limit is effective in all areas, except for the Gulf of Mexico, where NMFS prohibits targeting fishing for BFT, and applies to those vessels permitted in the General category, as well as to those HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels fishing commercially for BFT.
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment is impracticable because the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, intended that inseason retention limit adjustments would allow the agency to respond quickly to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Based on available BFT quotas, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds, adjustment to the General category BFT daily retention limit from the default level is warranted.
Delays in adjusting the retention limit may result in the available quota being reached or exceeded and NMFS needing to close the fishery earlier than otherwise would be necessary under a lower limit. Such delays could adversely affect those General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest BFT if the fishery were to remain open for as long as feasible throughout the remaining subquota
Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment is also impracticable for the retention limit adjustment to one fish for the September and subsequent subquota periods. By adopting the one-fish limit for the remainder of the year through this action, NMFS avoids confusion that would arise for the regulated community from two inseason actions adopting the same limit. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For these reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under § 635.23(a)(4), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Central Aleutian district (CAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the CAI allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 28, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the CAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 619 metric tons by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the CAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
After the effective dates of this closure, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Pacific ocean perch directed fishery in the CAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a document providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 25, 2017. The Acting AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Power Act requires hydropower licensees to recompense the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of federal lands. The Commission assesses annual charges for the use of federal lands through Part 11 of its regulations. The Commission proposes to revise the per-acre land value component of its methodology for calculating these annual charges for hydropower projects located in Alaska. Under the proposed rule, the Commission would calculate a statewide average per-acre land value for hydropower lands in Alaska. The Commission would use the statewide average per-acre land value, rather than a regional per-acre land value, to calculate annual charges for use of federal lands for all hydropower projects in Alaska, except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area.
Comments are due October 30, 2017.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
•
1. The Federal Power Act (FPA) requires hydropower licensees that use federal lands to compensate the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of federal lands.
2. Section 10(e)(1) of the FPA requires Commission hydropower licensees using federal lands to pay reasonable annual charges, as determined by the Commission, to recompense the United States for the use and occupancy of its lands.
3. The Commission has adopted various methods over the years to accomplish this statutory directive.
4. In Order No. 774, the Commission adopted a fee schedule method for calculating annual charges for use of government lands, based on BLM's methodology for calculating rental rates for linear rights of way. Pursuant to section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations, the Commission publishes an annual fee schedule which lists per-acre rental fees by county or geographic area.
5. The per-acre rental fee for a particular county or geographic area is calculated by multiplying four components: (1) A per-acre land value; (2) an encumbrance factor; (3) a rate of return; and (4) an annual adjustment factor.
6. The first component—the per-acre land value—is based on average per-acre land values published in the NASS Census. Specifically, the per-acre land value is determined by the applicable county or geographic area “land and buildings” category
7. The NASS Census is conducted every five years, with an 18-month delay before NASS publishes the census data. The Commission incorporates another 18-month delay to account for revisions, consistent with BLM's implementation of its 2008 rule. Therefore, the Commission based the 2011-2015 fee schedules on data from the 2007 NASS Census. The Commission's 2016-2020 fee schedules will be based on data from the 2012 NASS Census; the 2021-2025 fee schedules will be based on data from the 2017 NASS Census; the 2026-2030 fee schedules will be based on data from the 2022 NASS Census; and so on. State-specific adjustments to the per-acre land value are performed in the first year that data from a new NASS Census are used, and will remain the same until the subsequent NASS Census data are used to calculate the forthcoming set of fee schedules.
8. With regard to Alaska, Order No. 774 explained that the final rule would adopt BLM's approach to per-acre land values by designating lands in Alaska as part of one of the five NASS Census geographic area identifiers: The Aleutian Islands Area, the Anchorage Area, the Fairbanks Area, the Juneau Area, and the Kenai Peninsula Area. Several commenters asserted that a per-acre statewide value, a category also reported by the NASS Census, should be used to establish assessments for federal land in Alaska.
9. Order No. 774 considered the arguments raised in support of a statewide per-acre value. In particular, several commenters asserted that it is inappropriate to use regional per-acre values for Alaska because Alaska does not use county designations; the number of farms surveyed for the NASS Census in the entire state of Alaska is less than the number of farms surveyed in most counties in the lower-48 states; and, certain per-acre land values near Anchorage and Juneau are very high, resulting in a substantial increase in annual charges for the use of government lands by hydropower licensees in these areas. However, the Commission ultimately concluded that the commenters had not advanced a sufficient explanation for why it was more appropriate to use a statewide per-acre value for Alaska, rather than the smallest NASS Census defined area for Alaska—the geographic area identifier. Although the Commission rejected the use of a statewide per-acre land value for Alaska in Order No. 774, the Commission clarified that it would not use rates based on the Anchorage Area and the Juneau Area values to assess annual land use charges “because these high, urban-based rates would not reasonably reflect the value of government lands on which hydropower projects are located.”
10. The Commission used the 2012 NASS Census data to calculate its fee schedule for the first time in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. Due to per-acre land value increases in the 2012 NASS Census data, hydropower projects located in certain geographic areas in Alaska experienced a significant increase in federal land use charges when compared to the rates assessed in FY 2015.
11. On June 6, 2016, the Alaska Federal Land Fees Group, comprising six hydroelectric licensees with projects in Alaska (Alaska Group),
12. In support of this proposal, the Alaska Group states that due to the small number of farms (and associated acreage) that contribute to the data compiled in the NASS Census, there is insufficient data in any individual Alaska area (with the exception of the Aleutian Islands)
13. For these reasons, the Alaska Group asserts that an adjusted statewide average per-acre land value would better reflect the diverse topography of the state and insulate against land value fluctuations caused by individual changes in farm data. The Alaska Group believes that this method would produce a more accurate estimate of the fair market value of federal lands in Alaska.
14. On November 17, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry soliciting input on a narrow question related to its current methodology for calculating annual charges for the use of government lands—whether regional per-acre land values based on data published in the NASS Census “land and buildings” category result in reasonably accurate land valuations for projects that occupy federal lands in Alaska. In response to the proposal advanced by the Alaska Group's petition for rulemaking, the Notice of Inquiry requested comments on several specific questions. First, the Commission asked whether it should use a statewide average per-acre land value rather than a regional per-acre land value to calculate the adjusted per-acre land value for projects that occupy federal lands in Alaska. Second, if a statewide average per-acre value is preferred, the Commission sought input on whether the statewide value should be applied to (i) all projects in Alaska, or (ii) all projects in Alaska except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area. Finally, the Commission requested commenters to identify which of the five geographic regions of Alaska it should use to calculate the statewide average per-acre land value.
15. In addition, the Notice of Inquiry encouraged commenters to submit alternative proposals for determining a reasonably accurate per-acre land value for projects in Alaska, provided that the proposed calculation was based on data published in the NASS Census. The notice also invited federal land management agencies to comment on how they would view reductions in annual charges for the lands they administer.
16. The Notice of Inquiry identified five requirements that any proposed methodology should satisfy, derived from the Commission's statutory obligations under the FPA
17. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, seven entities filed comments: The Alaska Group; U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski; Homer Electric Association, Inc. (Homer Electric); Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (Kodiak Electric); the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service); Erin Noakes; and Chelsea Liddell.
18. The Alaska Group filed comments reiterating its position that the Commission should adopt a statewide average per-acre land value for all hydropower projects in Alaska, and that the statewide average should be applied to all projects in Alaska, except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area. The Alaska Group states that it does not believe that the Commission needs to change its methodology for calculating annual charges for the Aleutian Islands Area since the substantial amount of agricultural acreage represented in the NASS Census data results in a fair estimate of land values for this particular region.
19. In support of its position, the Alaska Group states that the use of a statewide average per-acre land value would provide “a more robust and representative assessment of fair market value of federal lands in [the Kenai and Fairbanks] areas of Alaska, because it draws on a larger and more diverse dataset from across the state, and ensures that rates are less prone to fluctuation over time.”
20. Senator Murkowski urges the Commission to use a statewide average per-acre land value, stating that the NASS Census data does not provide an accurate accounting of land values in Alaska because the state has fewer farms and farm acreage than any other state in the Pacific Northwest. Homer Electric, an electric distribution cooperative that provides service in the Kenai Peninsula, agrees with Senator Murkowski's comments that the NASS Census data does not provide an accurate accounting of Alaskan land values. Homer Electric also urges the Commission to adopt a statewide average per-acre land value for Alaska.
21. Kodiak Electric, a licensee of a hydropower project located in the Aleutian Islands Area, states that the regional per-acre land values published in the NASS Census result in reasonably accurate land valuations for hydropower lands in the Aleutian Islands Area. Because of the large number of agricultural acreage reported by the NASS Census for the Aleutian Islands Area, Kodiak Electric believes no changes to the Commission's current methodology are needed for this geographic region. If the Commission decides to adopt a statewide average per-acre land value for hydropower projects in Alaska, Kodiak Electric recommends that the Commission refrain from applying the statewide value to projects located in the Aleutian Islands Area.
22. The Forest Service observes that from an economic perspective the use of a statewide average per-acre land value for Alaska, derived from data published in the NASS Census, would result in a significant reduction in rental rates for the land in question. However, the Forest Service states that it does not recommend the use of a fee schedule
23. Erin Noakes and Chelsea Liddell each filed individual comments recommending that the Commission decline the request to alter its current methodology for calculating federal land charges for hydropower projects in Alaska. Ms. Noakes observes that the use of a statewide average per-acre land value may result in the under-collection of reasonable annual charges for the use of federal lands by hydropower projects in Alaska. Ms. Liddell asserts that the Alaska Group has not sufficiently demonstrated that a statewide average per-acre land value would be any more accurate than a regional per-acre land value.
24. The Commission proposes to adopt the use of a statewide average per-acre land value, rather than a regional per-acre land value, for the purposes of calculating annual charges for hydropower projects that occupy federal lands in Alaska.
25. To calculate the statewide average per-acre land value for Alaska, the Commission will average the data published in the “lands and buildings” category of the NASS Census for two geographic areas: the Kenai Peninsula Area and the Fairbanks Area.
26. We believe this proposal responds to the issues identified by the petitioners—the prevalence of federal lands in Alaska, the sparse amount of agricultural acreage reflected in the NASS Census, and the increase in annual charges that resulted when the Commission began using data from the 2012 NASS Census. Combining the value of the farmland acreage in the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks Areas to calculate a statewide average land value will result in a larger, more robust data set. A larger data set will be less prone to future fluctuation due to changes in the level of participation in NASS Census data reporting or specific anomalies in the data reported. We are satisfied that a statewide average per-acre land value based on the NASS Census data from the “land and buildings” category for the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks Areas will result in reasonably accurate land values for hydropower projects that occupy federal lands in Alaska.
27. While the Commission is proposing to implement a statewide average per-acre land value to address these concerns, we are not persuaded that the Aleutian Islands Area values, which are lower than land values elsewhere in the state, should be used in calculating a statewide average that is applied to hydropower projects located outside of the Aleutian Islands Area.
28. The Forest Service recommends that the Commission employ a method based on the 2015 Minimum Rent Schedule for BLM Land Use Authorizations in Alaska.
29. In addition, the Forest Service suggests that the Commission consider a fee based on power generated, similar to the solar fee schedule. For solar energy right-of-way authorizations, BLM charges a combined rent and fee consisting of an acreage rent paid annually regardless of the stage of development, and a megawatt capacity fee paid annually once electricity generation begins.
30. The Paperwork Reduction Act
31. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant effect on the human environment.
32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
33. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.
34. Section 10(e)(1) of the FPA requires that the Commission fix a reasonable annual charge for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of federal lands by hydropower licensees. To date, the Commission has issued 21 active licenses that occupy federal lands in Alaska to 15 discrete entities. Therefore, the proposed rule will apply to a total of 15 entities. Of these 15 entities, 13 entities would be impacted by the proposed rule because they hold licenses that occupy federal lands in the Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, Juneau, or Anchorage Areas. The proposed rule adopts the use of a statewide average per-acre land value, rather than a regional per-acre land value, for the purpose of calculating annual charges for the use of federal lands in Alaska. The Commission will apply the statewide average per-acre land value to all hydropower projects in Alaska, except for projects located in the Aleutian Islands Area. The Commission will continue to apply the regional per-acre land value for the Aleutian Islands Area.
35. Based on a review of the 13 licensees that would be impacted by the proposed rule, we estimate that most, if not all, are small entities under the SBA definition. These 13 licensees include utilities, non-for-profit electric cooperatives, cities, and companies.
36. Any impact on these small entities would not be significant. Under the proposed rule, a statewide average per-acre land value for hydropower lands in Alaska would be calculated based on a larger agricultural data set, resulting in land values that will be less prone to future fluctuation caused by changes in census data reporting. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, the use of a statewide average per-acre land value would result in a lower per-acre fee than that assessed in FY 2016. Accordingly, the 13 affected licensees would pay lower annual charge assessments for use of federal lands in FY 2017 than they did the previous fiscal year. Furthermore, six of the 13 affected licensees are members of the Alaska Group, which petitioned the Commission to revise its methodology for calculating annual charges for use of federal lands by establishing a statewide average per-acre land value for Alaska. Consequently, the proposed rule should not impose a significant economic impact on small entities.
37. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
38. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due October 30, 2017. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16-19-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.
39. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
40. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
41. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
42. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
43. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
44. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Dams, Electric power, Indians-lands, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to amend Part 11, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) For all geographic areas in Alaska except for the Aleutian Islands Area, the Commission will calculate a statewide average per-acre land value based on the average per-acre land and building values published in the NASS Census for the Kenai Peninsula and the Fairbanks Areas. This statewide average per-acre value will be reduced by the sum of the state-specific modifier and seven percent. The resulting adjusted statewide average per-acre value will be applied to all projects located in Alaska, except for those projects located in the Aleutian Island Area.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is announcing the availability of another draft chapter of a multichapter guidance for industry entitled “Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food: Guidance for Industry.” This multichapter draft guidance is intended to explain our current thinking on how to comply with the requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls under our rule entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food.” The newly available draft chapter is entitled “Chapter Six—Use of Heat Treatments as a Process Control.”
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider your comment on this draft guidance before we issue the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments by February 27, 2018.
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.”
•
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels
Jenny Scott, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2166.
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. It enables FDA to focus more on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. FSMA recognizes the important role industry plays in ensuring the safety of the food supply, including the adoption of modern systems of preventive controls in food production.
Section 103 of FSMA amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), in section 418 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g), by adding requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for establishments that are required to register as food facilities under our regulations, in 21 CFR part 1, subpart H, in accordance with section 415 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350d). We have established regulations to implement these requirements within part 117 (21 CFR part 117).
In the
The multichapter draft guidance for industry is intended to explain our current thinking on how to comply with the requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls under part 117, principally in subparts C and G. The chapter that we are announcing in this document is entitled “Chapter Six—Use of Heat Treatments as a Process Control.”
We intend to announce the availability for public comment of additional chapters of the draft guidance as we complete them.
This draft 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 part 117 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0751.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of proposed amendments to PTE 2016-01, PTE 2016-02, and PTE 84-24.
This document proposes to extend the special transition period under sections II and IX of the Best Interest Contract Exemption and section VII of the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs. This document also proposes to delay the applicability of certain amendments to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for the same period. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to give the Department of Labor the time necessary to consider possible changes and alternatives to these exemptions. The Department is particularly concerned that, without a delay in the applicability dates, regulated parties may incur undue expense to comply with conditions or requirements that it ultimately determines to revise or repeal. The present transition period is from June 9, 2017, to January 1, 2018. The new transition period would end on July 1, 2019. The proposed amendments to these exemptions would affect participants and beneficiaries of plans, IRA owners and fiduciaries with respect to such plans and IRAs.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2017.
All written comments should be sent to the Office of Exemption Determinations by any of the following methods, identified by RIN 1210-AB82:
Comments will be available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room, EBSA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Comments will also be available online at
Brian Shiker, telephone (202) 693-8824, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration.
Section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), in relevant part provides that a person is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent he or she renders investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of such plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so. Section 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) has a parallel provision that defines a fiduciary of a plan (including an individual retirement account or annuity (IRA)). The Department of Labor (“the Department”) in 1975 issued a regulation establishing a five-part test under this section of ERISA. See 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)(1) (2015).
On April 8, 2016, the Department replaced the 1975 regulation with a new regulatory definition (the “Fiduciary Rule”). The Fiduciary Rule defines who is a “fiduciary” of an employee benefit plan under section 3(21)(A)(ii) of ERISA as a result of giving investment advice to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries. The Fiduciary Rule also applies to the definition of a “fiduciary” of a plan in the Code. The Fiduciary Rule treats persons who provide investment advice or recommendations for a fee or other compensation with respect to assets of a plan or IRA as fiduciaries in a wider array of advice relationships than was true under the 1975 regulation. On the same date, the Department published two new administrative class exemptions from the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1106) and the Code (26 U.S.C. 4975(c)(1)): The Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC Exemption) and the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (Principal Transactions Exemption), as well as amendments to previously granted exemptions (collectively referred to as “PTEs,” unless otherwise indicated). The Fiduciary Rule and PTEs had an original applicability date of April 10, 2017.
By Memorandum dated February 3, 2017, the President directed the Department to prepare an updated analysis of the likely impact of the Fiduciary Rule on access to retirement information and financial advice. The President's Memorandum was published in the
On April 7, 2017, the Department promulgated a final rule extending the applicability date of the Fiduciary Rule by 60 days from April 10, 2017, to June 9, 2017 (“April Delay Rule”).
On July 6, 2017, the Department published in the
Although the Fiduciary Rule, BIC Exemption, and Principal Transactions Exemption first became applicable on June 9, 2017, transition relief is provided throughout the current Transition Period, which runs from June 9, 2017, through January 1, 2018. “Financial Institutions” and “Advisers,” as defined in the exemptions, who wish to rely on these exemptions for covered transactions during this period must adhere to the “Impartial Conduct Standards” only. In general, this means that Financial
The remaining conditions of the BIC Exemption would become applicable on January 1, 2018, absent a further delay of their applicability. This includes the requirement, for transactions involving IRA owners, that the Financial Institution enter into an enforceable written contract with the retirement investor. The contract would include an enforceable promise to adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards, an express acknowledgement of fiduciary status, and a variety of disclosures related to fees, services, and conflicts of interest. IRA owners, who do not have statutory enforcement rights under ERISA, would be able to enforce their contractual rights under state law. Also, as of January 1, 2018, the exemption requires Financial Institutions to adopt policies and procedures that meet specified conflict-mitigation criteria. In particular, the policies and procedures must be reasonably and prudently designed to ensure that Advisers adhere to the Impartial Conduct Standards and must provide that neither the Financial Institution nor (to the best of its knowledge) its affiliates or related entities will use or rely on quotas, appraisals, performance or personnel actions, bonuses, contests, special awards, differential compensation, or other actions or incentives that are intended or would reasonably be expected to cause advisers to make recommendations that are not in the best interest of the retirement investor.
Similarly, while the Principal Transactions Exemption is conditioned solely on adherence to the Impartial Conduct Standards during the current Transition Period, its remaining conditions also will become applicable on January 1, 2018, absent a further delay of their applicability. The Principal Transactions Exemption permits investment advice fiduciaries to sell to or purchase from plans or IRAs investments in “principal transactions” and “riskless principal transactions”—transactions involving the sale from or purchase for the Financial Institution's own inventory. Conditions scheduled to become applicable on January 1, 2018, include a contract requirement and a policies and procedures requirement that mirror the requirements in the BIC Exemption. The Principal Transactions Exemption also includes some conditions that are different from the BIC Exemption, including credit and liquidity standards for debt securities sold to plans and IRAs pursuant to the exemption and additional disclosure requirements.
PTE 84-24, which applies to advisory transactions involving insurance and annuity contracts and mutual fund shares, was most recently amended in 2016 in conjunction with the development of the Fiduciary Rule, BIC Exemption, and Principal Transactions Exemption.
Question 1 of the RFI specifically asked whether a delay in the January 1, 2018, applicability date of the provisions in the BIC Exemption, Principal Transactions Exemption and amendments to PTE 84-24 would reduce burdens on financial services providers and benefit retirement investors by allowing for more efficient implementation responsive to recent market developments. This question also made inquiry into risks, advantages, and costs and benefits associated with such a delay.
Many commenters supported delaying the January 1, 2018, applicability dates of these PTEs. For example, one commenter stated that there is “no question that the comprehensive reexamination directed by the President cannot be completed by January 1, 2018, especially where the record is replete with evidence that the result of that review will be required revisions to the Rule and exemptions, all of which take time.”
Among the commenters supporting a delay, some suggested a fixed length of time and others suggested a more open-ended delay. Of those commenters suggesting a fixed length delay, there was no consensus among them regarding the appropriate length, but the range generally was 1 to 2 years from the current applicability date of January 1, 2018.
Regardless of whether advocating for a fixed or open-ended delay, many commenters focused on the uncertain fate of the PTEs. A significant number of industry commenters, for example, stated that because the Department, as part of its ongoing examination under the Presidential Memorandum, has indicated that it is actively considering changes or alternatives to the BIC Exemption, the January 1, 2018, applicability date should be delayed at least until such changes or alternatives are finalized, with a reasonable period beyond that date for compliance. Otherwise, according to these commenters, costly systems changes to comply with the BIC Exemption by January 1, 2018, must commence or conclude immediately, and these costs could prove unnecessary in whole or in part depending on the eventual regulatory outcome. Industry commenters stated that it is widely expected within the financial industry that there will be certain change(s) to the Rule or to the exemption pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum. Industry commenters also expressed concerns that uncertainty concerning expected changes is likely to lead to consumer confusion and inefficient industry development. Several industry commenters indicated their concern that, without additional delays, compliance efforts may prove to be a waste of time and money.
Many commenters argued that, in spite of the level of uncertainty surrounding the ultimate fate of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs, the Department will need to at least partially modify the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs. These commenters cite the President's Memorandum dated February 3, 2017, requiring the Department to prepare an updated analysis of the likely impact of the Fiduciary Rule on access to retirement information and financial advice, and predict that this analysis will affirm their view that regulatory changes are necessary to avoid adverse impacts on advice, access, costs, and litigation.
Many commenters argue that a delay in the January 1, 2018, applicability date is needed in order for the Department and Secretary of Labor Acosta to coordinate with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the new leadership of Chairman Clayton. These commenters assert that meaningful coordination simply is not possible between now and January 1, 2018, on the many important issues affecting retirement investors raised by the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs, including the potential confusion for investors caused by different rules and regulations applying to different types of investment accounts. One commenter suggested that, absent a delay in the January 1, 2018, applicability date, there will be no genuine opportunity for the Department to coordinate with the SEC under the new leadership regimes. The full Fiduciary Rule would become applicable before the SEC had done its own rulemaking, leaving the SEC no choice except to apply the standards in the Fiduciary Rule to all of those investments subject to SEC jurisdiction, write a different rule, which would exacerbate the current confusion and inconsistencies, or to do nothing, according to one commenter.
With respect to recent and ongoing market developments, many commenters stated that a delay would allow for more efficient implementation responsive to these innovations, thereby reducing burdens on financial services providers and benefiting retirement investors. For instance, one industry commenter asserted that a delay in the applicability date would provide financial institutions with the necessary time to develop “clean shares” programs and minimize disruption for retirement investors. The commenter stated that “[w]ithout a delay in the applicability date, a broker-dealer firm that believes the direction of travel is towards the clean share will be forced to either eliminate access to commissionable investment advice or make the fundamental business changes required by the Best Interest Contract Exemption in order to continue offering traditional commissionable mutual funds. Both approaches would be incredibly disruptive for investors who could have little choice but to either move to a fee-based advisory program in order to maintain access to advice or enter into a Best Interest Contract only to be transitioned into a clean shares program shortly thereafter, and would make it less likely that firms will evolve to clean shares.”
Consumer commenters expressed a concern with using recent and ongoing market developments as a basis for a blanket delay. It was asserted that if the Department decides to move forward with a delay, it should only allow firms to take advantage of the delay if they affirmatively show they have already taken concrete steps to harness recent market developments for their compliance plans. For example, one commenter contends that if a broker-dealer has decided that it is more efficient to move straight to clean shares rather than implementing the rule using T shares, the broker-dealer should, as a condition of delay, be required to provide evidence to the Department of the steps that it already has taken to distribute clean shares, including, for example, providing evidence of efforts to negotiate sellers agreements with funds that are offering clean shares. This commenter stated that the Department “should not provide a blanket delay to all firms, including those firms that have not taken any meaningful, concrete steps to harness recent market developments and have no plans to do so. This narrowly tailored approach has the advantage of benefitting only those firms and, in turn, their customers that are using the delay productively rather than providing an undue benefit to firms that are merely looking for reasons to further stall implementation.”
With respect to risks to retirement investors from a delay, many industry commenters argue that the risks of a delay are very minimal, as they have largely been mitigated by the existing regulatory structure and the applicability of the Impartial Conduct Standards. For instance, regarding potential additional costs to retirement investors associated with any further delay, many industry commenters stated that these concerns have been mitigated, and indeed addressed by the Department, through the imposition of the Impartial Conduct Standards beginning on June 9, 2017. Various commenters indicated that Financial Institutions have, in fact, taken steps to ensure compliance with the Impartial Conduct Standards. Commenters have also pointed to the SEC and FINRA regulatory regimes as a means to ensure consumers are appropriately protected. It is the position of these commenters that there is little, if any, risk that consumers will be harmed by a delay of the January 1, 2018 applicability date.
By contrast, many commenters representing consumers believe there is risk to consumers in further delaying these PTEs from becoming fully applicable on January 1, 2018. One commenter, for example, focused on the contract provision of the exemption, and expressed concern that delaying that provision would significantly undermine the protections and effectiveness of the rule.
Many commenters asserted that a delay would be advantageous both to retirement investors and firms; and, conversely, that rigid adherence to the
Many commenters drew attention to pending litigation challenging the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs. In this regard, a commenter stated that “[i]t would be poor process for DOL to allow the remaining requirements . . . to take effect on January 1, 2018, without providing detailed and clear guidance on critical open legal issues generated entirely by the DOL's own regulatory actions. ”
Regarding the contract and warranty requirements, a significant number of commenters remain divided on these provisions, with many expressing concern about potential negative implications for access to advice and investor costs. Many financial service providers have expressed particular concern about the potential for class litigation and firm liability, and that absent a delay of those provisions, there will be a reduction in advice and services to consumers, particularly those with small accounts who may be most in need of good investment advice.
Based on its review and evaluation of the public comments, the Department is proposing to extend the Transition Period in the BIC Exemption and Principal Transaction Exemption for 18 months until July 1, 2019, and to delay the applicability date of certain amendments to PTE 84-24 for the same period. The same rules and standards in effect now would remain in effect throughout the duration of the extended Transition Period, if adopted. Thus, Financial Institutions and Advisers would have to give prudent advice that is in retirement investors' best interest, charge no more than reasonable compensation, and avoid misleading statements. It is based on the continued adherence to these fundamental protections that the Department, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1108, would consider granting the proposed extension until July 1, 2019.
The Department believes a delay may be necessary and appropriate for multiple reasons. To begin with, the Department has not yet completed the reexamination of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs, as directed by the President on
Based on the evidence before it at this time while it continues to conduct this examination, the Department is proposing a time-certain delay of 18 months. The Department is also interested in an alternative approach raised by several commenters to the RFI, however—that the Department institute a delay that would end a specified period after a certain action on the part of the Department,
Separately, the Department also requests comments on whether it would be beneficial to adopt a tiered approach. For example, this could be a final rule that delayed the Transition Period until the earlier or the later of (a) a date certain or (b) the end of a period following the occurrence of a defined event. The Department is particularly interested in comments as to whether such a tiered approach would provide sufficient certainty to be beneficial, and how best it could communicate with stakeholders the determination that one date or the other would trigger compliance. The Department is interested in comments that provide insight as to any relative benefits or harms of these three different delay approaches: (1) A delay set for a time certain, including the 18-months proposed by this document, (2) a delay that ends a specified period after the occurrence of a specific event, and (3) a tiered approach where the delay is set for the earlier of or the later of (a) a time certain and (b) the end of a specified period after the occurrence of a specific event.
Finally, several commenters suggested that the Department condition any delay of the Transition Period on the behavior of the entity seeking relief under the Transition Period. These commenters suggested generally that any delay should be conditioned, for example, on a Financial Institution's showing that it has, or a promise that it will, take steps to harness recent innovations in investment products and services, such as “clean shares.” Conditions of this type generally seem more relevant in the context of considering the development of additional and more streamlined exemption approaches that take into account recent marketplace innovations and less appropriate and germane in the context of a decision whether to extend the Transition Period. Although this proposal, therefore, does not adopt this approach, the Department solicits comments on this approach, in particular the benefits and costs of this suggestion, and ways in which the Department could ensure the workability of such an approach.
The Department expects that this proposed transition period extension would produce benefits that justify associated costs. The proposed extension would avert the possibility of a costly and disorderly transition from the Impartial Conduct Standards to full compliance with the exemption conditions, and thereby reduce some compliance costs. As stated above, the Department currently is engaged in the process of reviewing the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs as directed in the Presidential Memorandum and reviewing comments received in response to the RFI. As part of this process, the Department will determine whether further changes to the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs are necessary. Although many firms have taken steps to ensure that they are meeting their fiduciary obligations and satisfying the Impartial Conduct Standards of the PTEs, they are encountering uncertainty regarding the potential future revision or possible repeal of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs. Therefore, as reflected in the comments, many financial firms have slowed or halted their efforts to prepare for full compliance with the exemption conditions that currently are scheduled to become applicable on January 1, 2018, because they are concerned about committing resources to comply with PTE conditions that ultimately could be modified or repealed. This proposed applicability date extension will assure stakeholders that they will not be subject to the other exemption conditions in the BIC and the Principal Transaction PTEs until at least July 1, 2019. Of course, the benefits of extending the transition period generally will be proportionately larger for those firms that currently have committed fewer resources to comply with the full exemption conditions. The Department's objective is to complete its
The Department believes that investor losses from the proposed transition period extension could be relatively small. Because the Fiduciary Rule and the Impartial Conduct Standards became applicable on June 9, 2017, the Department believes that firms already have made efforts to adhere to the rule and those standards. Thus, the Department believes that relative to deferring all of the provisions of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs, a substantial portion of the investor gains predicted in the Department's 2016 regulatory impact analysis of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs (2016 RIA) would remain intact for the proposed extended transition period.
This proposal is an economically significant action within the meaning of section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, because it would likely have an effect on the economy of $100 million in at least one year. Accordingly, the Department has considered the costs and benefits of the proposal, which has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Department's 2016 RIA estimated a portion of the potential gains for IRA investors at between $33 billion and $36 billion over the first 10 years for one segment of the market and category of conflicts of interest. It predicted, but did not quantify, additional gains for both IRA and ERISA plan investors.
With respect to this proposal, the Department considered whether investor losses might result. Beginning on June 9, 2017, Financial Institutions and Advisers generally are required to (1) make recommendations that are in their client's best interest (
Advisers who presently are ERISA-plan fiduciaries are especially likely to satisfy fully the PTEs' Impartial Conduct Standards before July 1, 2019, because they are subject to ERISA standards of prudence and loyalty and thus would be subject to claims for civil liability under ERISA if they violate their fiduciary obligations or fail to satisfy the Impartial Conduct Standards if they use an exemption. Moreover, fiduciary advisers who do not provide impartial advice as required by the Rule and PTEs in the IRA market would violate the prohibited transaction rules of the Code and become subject to the prohibited transaction excise tax. Even though advisers currently are not specifically required by the terms of these PTEs to notify retirement investors of the Impartial Conduct Standards and to acknowledge their fiduciary status, many investors expect they are entitled to advice that adheres to a fiduciary standard because of the publicity the final rule and PTEs have received from the Department and media, and the Department understands that many advisers notified consumers voluntarily about the imposition of the standard and their adherence to that standard as a best practice.
Comments received by the Department indicate that many financial institutions already have completed or largely completed work to establish policies and procedures necessary to make many of the business structure and practice shifts necessary to support compliance with the Fiduciary Rule and Impartial Conduct Standards (
Based on comments received in response to the RFI that are discussed in Section C, above, the Department believes firms that are fiduciaries under the Fiduciary Rule have committed resources to implementing procedures to support compliance with their fiduciary obligations. This may include changing their compensation structures and monitoring the practices and procedures of their advisers to ensure that conflicts of interest do not cause violations of the Fiduciary Rule and Impartial Conduct Standards of the PTEs and maintaining sufficient records to corroborate that they are complying with the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs. These firms have considerable flexibility to choose precisely how they will achieve compliance with the PTEs during the proposed extended transition period. The Department does not have sufficient data to estimate such costs; therefore, they are not quantified.
Some commenters have asserted that the proposed transition period extension could result in cost savings for firms compared to the costs that were estimated in the Department's 2016 RIA to the extent that the requirements of the Fiduciary Rule and PTE conditions are modified in a way that would result in less expensive compliance costs. However, the Department generally believes that start-up costs not yet incurred for requirements now scheduled to become applicable on January 1, 2018, should not be included, at this time, as a cost savings associated with this proposal because the proposal would merely delay the full implementation of certain conditions in the PTEs until July 1, 2019, while the Department considers whether to propose changes and alternatives to the exemptions. The Department would be required to assume for purposes of this regulatory
The first of the two approaches reflects the time value of money (
The second of the two approaches simply estimates the expenses foregone during the period from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019 as a result of the delay. When the Department published the 2016 Final Rule and accompanying PTEs, it calculated that the total ongoing compliance costs of the rule and PTEs were $1.5 billion annually. Therefore, the Department estimates the ten-year present value of the cost savings of firms not being required to incur ongoing compliance costs during an 18 month delay would be approximately $2.2 billion using a three percent discount rate
Based on its progress thus far with the review and reexamination directed by the President, however, the Department believes there may be evidence of alternatives that reduce costs and increase benefits to all affected parties, while maintaining protections for retirement investors. The Department anticipates that it will have a much clearer image of the range of such alternatives once it completes a careful review of the data and evidence submitted in response to the RFI.
The Department also cannot determine at this time to what degree the infrastructure that affected firms have already established to ensure compliance with the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs exemptions would be sufficient to facilitate compliance with the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs conditions if they are modified in the future.
While the Department considered several alternatives that were informed by public comments, this proposal likely would yield the most desirable outcome including avoidance of costly market disruptions and investor losses. In weighing different options, the Department took numerous factors into account. The Department's objective was to avoid unnecessary confusion and uncertainty in the investment advice market, facilitate continued marketplace innovation, and minimize investor losses.
The Department considered not proposing any extension of the transition period, which would mean that the remaining conditions in the PTEs would become applicable on January 1, 2018. The Department is not pursuing this alternative, however, because it would not provide sufficient time for the Department to complete its ongoing review of, or propose and finalize any changes to the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs. Moreover, absent the proposed extension of the transition period, Financial Institutions and Advisers would feel compelled to prepare for full compliance with PTE conditions that become applicable on January 1, 2018, the applicability date of the additional PTE conditions despite the possibility that the Department could adopt more efficient alternatives. This could lead to unnecessary compliance costs and market disruptions. As compared to a shorter delay with the possibility of consecutive additional delays, if needed, this proposal would provide more certainty for affected stakeholders because it sets a firm date for full compliance, which would allow for proper planning and reliance. The Department's objective would be to complete its review of the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs pursuant to the President's Memorandum and the RFI responses sufficiently in advance of July 1, 2019, to provide firms with enough time to prepare for whatever action is prompted by the review. As discussed above, the Department believes that investor losses associated with this proposed extension would be relatively small. The fact that the Fiduciary Rule and the Impartial Conduct Standards are now in effect makes it likely that retirement investors will experience much of the potential gains from a higher conduct standard and minimizes the potential for an undue reduction in those gains as compared to the full protections of all the PTE conditions as discussed in the 2016 Regulatory Impact Analysis.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
OMB has previously approved information collections contained in the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs. The Department now is proposing to extend the transition period for the full conditions of the PTEs associated with its Fiduciary Rule until July 1, 2019. The Department is not proposing to modify the substance of the information collections at this time; however, the current OMB approval periods of the information collection requests (ICRs) expire prior to the new proposed applicability date for the full conditions of the PTEs as they currently exist. Therefore, many of the information collections will remain inactive for the remainder of the current ICR approval periods. The ICRs contained in the exemptions are discussed below.
For a more detailed discussion of the information collections and associated burden of this PTE, see the Department's PRA analysis at 81 FR 21002, 21071.
For a more detailed discussion of the information collections and associated burden of this PTE, see the Department's PRA analysis at 81 FR 21089, 21129.
The proposal delays the applicability date of amendments to PTE 84-24 until July 1, 2019, except that the Impartial Conduct Standards became applicable on June 9, 2017. The Department does not have sufficient data to estimate that number of respondents that will use PTE 84-24 with the inclusion of Impartial Conduct Standards but delayed applicability date of amendments. Therefore, the Department has not revised its burden estimate.
For a more detailed discussion of the information collections and associated burden of this PTE, see the Department's PRA analysis at 81 FR 21147, 21171.
These paperwork burden estimates, which comprise start-up costs that will be incurred prior to the July 1, 2019 effective date (and the June 30, 2019 expiration date of the current approval periods), are summarized as follows:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposal merely extends the transition period for the PTEs associated with the Department's 2016 Final Fiduciary Rule. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration hereby certifies that the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposal is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, as well as Executive Order 12875, this proposal does not include any federal mandate that we expect would result in such expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. The Department also does not expect that the proposed delay will have any material economic impacts on State, local or tribal governments, or on health, safety, or the natural environment.
Executive Order 13771, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment, or otherwise promulgates, a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.
The impacts of this proposal are categorized consistently with the analysis of the original Fiduciary Rule and PTEs, and the Department has also concluded that the impacts identified in the Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying the 2016 final rule may still be used as a basis for estimating the potential impacts of that final rule. It has been determined that, for purposes of E.O. 13771, the impacts of the Fiduciary Rule that were identified in the 2016 analysis as costs, and that are presently categorized as cost savings (or negative costs) in this proposal, and impacts of the Fiduciary Rule that were identified in the 2016 analysis as a combination of transfers and positive benefits are categorized as a combination of (opposite-direction) transfers and negative benefits in this proposal. Accordingly, OMB has determined that this proposal, if finalized as proposed, would be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
The Secretary of Labor has discretionary authority to grant administrative exemptions under ERISA and the Code on an individual or class basis, but only if the Secretary first finds that the exemptions are (1) administratively feasible, (2) in the interests of plans and their participants and beneficiaries and IRA owners, and (3) protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of such plans and IRA owners. 29 U.S.C. 1108(a); see also 26 U.S.C. 4975(c)(2).
Under this authority, and based on the reasons set forth above, the Department is proposing to amend the: (1) Best Interest Contract Exemption (PTE 2016-01); (2) Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02); and (3) Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 (PTE 84-24) for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters, as set forth below. These amendments would be effective on the date of publication in the
1. The BIC Exemption (PTE 2016-01) would be amended as follows:
A. The date “January 1, 2018” would be deleted and “July 1, 2019” inserted in its place in the introductory
B.
C.
D.
2. The Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016-02), would be amended as follows:
A. The date “January 1, 2018” would be deleted and “July 1, 2019” inserted in its place in the introductory
B.
C.
3. Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 for Certain Transactions Involving Insurance Agents and Brokers, Pension Consultants, Insurance Companies, and Investment Company Principal Underwriters, would be amended as follows:
A. The date “January 1, 2018” would be deleted where it appears in the introductory
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Illinois state implementation plan (SIP) to amend requirements applicable to certain coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). These amendments require the Will County 3 and Joliet 6, 7, and 8 EGUs to permanently cease combusting coal; allow other subject EGUs to cease combusting coal as an alternative means of compliance with mercury emission standards; exempt the Will County 4 EGU from sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0397 at
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategy Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On June 24, 2011, Illinois EPA submitted to EPA state rules to address the visibility protection requirements of Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the regional haze rule, as codified in 40 CFR 51.308. This submission included the following provisions contained in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (IAC), Part 225 (Part 225): sections 225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295 and 225.296 (except for 225.296(d)), and Appendix A to Part 225. On July 6, 2012, EPA approved these provisions (77 FR 39943).
On June 23, 2016, Illinois submitted revisions to these rules and on January 9, 2017, Illinois submitted additional information explaining the revisions.
EPA is proposing to approve the following revisions as part of Illinois' SIP:
SIP Section 225.291 sets forth the purpose of the CPS, which is to allow an alternate means of compliance with the emissions standards for mercury in 35 IAC 225.230(a) for specified EGUs through permanent shutdown, the installation of an activated carbon injection system, or the application of pollution control technology for NO
Illinois revised section 225.291 by stating as its purpose the conversion of an EGU to a fuel other than coal (such as natural gas or distillate fuel oil with sulfur content no greater than 15 parts per million (ppm)) as an additional alternative means of compliance with the mercury emission standards under the CPS.
SIP Section 225.292 describes the applicability of the CPS to the owner or operator of EGUs located at the Fisk, Crawford, Joliet, Powerton, Waukegan, and Will County power plants, which are specified in Appendix A of section 225. This section establishes what constitutes ownership of an EGU under the CPS, which EGUs may elect to comply with the CPS, the process by which an owner or operator may elect to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for mercury at 35 IAC 225.230 pursuant to the CPS, and compliance deadlines.
Illinois revised subsection (b) of section 225.292 to address EGUs that burn fuel other than coal. Illinois removed a reference that describes specified EGUs as “coal-fired,” and added a statement that a “specified EGU” is an EGU listed in Appendix A of section 225, irrespective of, among other things, “the type of fuel combusted (including natural gas or distillate fuel oil with sulfur content no greater than 15 ppm).” Illinois further amended subsection (a) of 225.292 by adding the word “the” before listing the specific power plants to which the CPS applies.
SIP Section 225.293 contains the notification requirements for the owner or operator of one or more specified EGUs who elects to comply with the mercury emission standards in 35 IAC 225.230 by means of the CPS.
Illinois amended this section by adding subsection (d), which establishes a notification requirement for owners and operators of EGUs listed in Appendix A of section 225 who, on or after January 1, 2015, change the type of primary fuel combusted by the unit or the control device or devices installed and operating on the unit. Such owners and operators must notify Illinois EPA of such change by January 1, 2017, or within 30 days after the completion of such change, whichever is later.
SIP Section 225.295 contains the emission standards, reporting requirements, and compliance dates for NO
Illinois amended this section to include specified EGUs that burn fuel other than coal. Section 225.295(a)(1) and (a)(2) was revised to specify that the NO
Illinois further amended Section 225.295 to specify that the SO
Finally, Illinois revised Section 225.295(d) to specify that the calculations for determining the group annual average SO
SIP Section 225.296 sets forth control technology requirements and compliance dates for SO
Illinois amended section 225.296(b)—“Other Control Technology Requirements for SO
Illinois further amended section 225.296(c)—“Control Technology Requirements for PM” to remove Will County 3 from the compliance requirements for PM in this section, which requires the owner or operator to make certain changes to the electro-static precipitator or permanently shut down the EGU by the date specified in this section. Section 225.296(c) now only applies to Waukegan 7, which was required to be in compliance with this section on or before December 31, 2013.
Appendix A of SIP Section 225 identifies the EGUs that are subject to the CPS. Illinois revised this section by removing references to “Midwest Generation,” and leaving the names of the city of the plants and the identification of the EGUs. This administrative change will eliminate the need for revisions to this section should there be future changes in ownership of the EGUs in Appendix A.
Illinois' final rule also amended 35 IAC Part 214 (Sulfur Limitations), Part 217 (Nitrogen Oxides Emissions), and other portions of Part 225 that are not part of Illinois' SIP and for which EPA is taking no action.
Most relevant to this action, Illinois amended section 225.295, “Emission Standards for NO
EPA is taking no action on this amendment because the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217, Subpart M, are not approved as part of the Illinois SIP, and Illinois EPA has not submitted the requirements for approval. Therefore, EPA is taking no action with respect to 35 IAC 225.295(a)(4).
EPA is proposing to approve the revisions discussed above because the revisions meet all applicable requirements under the CAA, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and the regional haze rule. Furthermore, the revisions do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
The proposed SIP revisions do not interfere with Illinois' regional haze SIP rules. Illinois relied on emission reductions of NO
First, Illinois has shown that the amendments to the CPS will result in significantly lower emissions of SO
In addition, by applying the SO
Second, Illinois has shown that the amendments to the CPS will, at worst, result in no change in emissions of NO
Illinois has further illustrated that there should be no change in NO
Third, while Illinois did not rely on emission reductions of PM from the EGU sector in its initial regional haze SIP submittal, it has shown that amendments to the CPS should result in an overall reduction in PM emissions. The amendments require Joliet 6, 7, and 8 (approximately 66 million mmBtu) and Will County 3 (approximately 16 million mmBtu) to permanently cease combusting coal. All of these EGUs were permitted to emit PM at a rate of 0.10 lbs/mmBtu. These units will either be shutting down or converting to natural gas combustion. The AP-42 emission factor for PM emissions from natural gas combustion is approximately 0.0075 lbs/mmBtu. This would result in a 92.5% reduction in PM emissions from the Joliet EGUs from their previous allowable emission rates when they are operating, and does not include any reductions from reduced operating time that Illinois anticipates will occur after conversion.
Fourth, Illinois has shown that the “transfer” of the exemption from complying with SO
Therefore, these revisions do not alter the EGU group-wide emission standards for SO
Under Section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171 of the CAA) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The proposed SIP revisions would not interfere with any applicable CAA requirements based on technical analysis submitted by Illinois EPA.
Illinois made these revisions to aid in attainment planning efforts for the 2010 SO
Therefore, the proposed revisions to CPS in Part 225 are approvable under Section 110(l) because: (1) There are no proposed changes to any SIP emission limits, except to make the SO
EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Illinois air pollution control rules at 35 IAC Part 225, specifically, sections 225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295 (except for 225.295(a)(4)), and 225.296 (except for 225.296(d)) and 225.Appendix A. Illinois EPA submitted the revisions to Part 225 on June 23, 2016, and submitted supplemental information on January 9, 2017.
Illinois' final rule also included revisions to Parts 214 (Sulfur limitations) and 217 (Nitrogen oxide emissions), and other sections of the Part 225 rules. EPA is not taking any action on those revisions, and, as noted above, Illinois' addition of 35 IAC 225.295(a)(4).
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Title 35 of Illinois Administrative Code Rule Part 225—Control of Emissions from Large Combustion Sources, sections 225.291, 225.292, 225.293, 225.295 (except for 225.295(a)(4)), and 225.296 (except for 225.296(d)) and 225.Appendix A, effective December 7, 2015. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from Indiana regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0343 at
Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-4489,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to take action on a June 10, 2016, submission from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) intended to address all applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2012 PM
Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2012 PM
EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Indiana that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D and the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and “regional haze SIP” submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A.
In this rulemaking, EPA will not take action on three substantive areas of section 110(a)(2): (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (
EPA's guidance for this infrastructure SIP submission is embodied in the 2007 Guidance referenced above. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Guidance (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. As discussed above, EPA issued additional guidance, the most recent being the 2013 Guidance that further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.
Pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. On April 26, 2016, IDEM opened a 30-day comment period, and provided the opportunity for public hearing. No comments or requests for public hearing were received.
Indiana provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of its SIP meet each of the applicable
This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters. EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.
IDEM's authority to adopt emissions standards and compliance schedules is found at Indiana Code (IC) 13-14-8, IC 13-17-3-4, IC 13-17-3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14. To maintain the 2012 PM
As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).
This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
IDEM continues to operate an air monitoring network; EPA approved the state's 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 31, 2016, including the plan for PM
States are required to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR) requirements under PSD and nonattainment NSR (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen (NO
IDEM maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. IC 13-14-1-12 provides the Commissioner with the authority to enforce rules “consistent with the purpose of the air pollution control laws.” Additionally, IC 13-14-2-7 and IC 13-17-3-3 provide the Commissioner with the authority to assess civil penalties and obtain compliance with any applicable rule a board has adopted in order to enforce air pollution control laws. Lastly, IC 13-14-10-2 allows for an emergency restraining order that prevents any person from causing, or introducing contaminants, that cause or contribute to air pollution. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012 PM
EPA's “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (
The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions incorporating the requirements of the rule, including these specific NO
EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP reflecting these requirements on July 2, 2014 (
On May 16, 2008 (
The explicit references to SO
The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as condensables, in PM
EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP reflecting these requirements on July 2, 2014 (
On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new “major source baseline date” for PM
On July 12, 2012, and supplemented on December 12, 2012, IDEM submitted revisions intended to address the increments established by the 2010 NSR Rule for incorporation into the SIP, as well as the revised major source baseline date, trigger date, and baseline area level of significance for PM
On August 11, 2014 (79 FR 46709), EPA finalized approval of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; therefore, we are proposing that Indiana has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012 PM
With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) as well as section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA interprets the CAA to
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions.
In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (
EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
At present, EPA is proposing that Indiana's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved Indiana PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision.
For the purposes of the 2012 PM
Certain sub-elements in this section overlap with elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(J). These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas below.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. EPA is not taking action on this infrastructure element in regards to the 2012 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.
EPA notes that Indiana's satisfaction of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2012 PM
EPA has previously approved revisions to Indiana's SIP that meet certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify NO
States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
Indiana's EPA-approved NNSR regulations are contained in 326 IAC 2-3, and are consistent with 40 CFR 51.165. Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met all of the applicable PSD requirements for the 2012 PM
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Memo states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. In this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove Indiana's satisfaction of the
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126 and section 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively).
Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for disapproval of this element. Indiana has provisions in its EPA-approved PSD program in 326 IAC 2-2-15 (b)(3) requiring new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential negative air quality impacts, and has referenced this program as having adequate provisions to meet the requirements of section 126(a). EPA is proposing that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
Indiana's biennial budget and its environmental performance partnership agreement with EPA document funding and personnel levels for IDEM every two years. As discussed in earlier sections, IC 13-14-1-12 provides the Commissioner of IDEM with the authority to enforce air pollution control laws. Furthermore, IC 13-14-8, IC 13-17-3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14 contain the authority for IDEM to adopt air emissions standards and compliance schedules. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2012 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.
On November 29, 2012, IDEM submitted rules regarding its Environmental Rules Board at IC 13-13-8 for incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. On December 12, 2012, IDEM provided a supplemental submission clarifying that the Environmental Rules Board established by IC 13-13-8, which has the authority to adopt environmental regulations under IC 4-22-2 and IC 13-14-9, does not have the authority to approve enforcement orders or permitting actions as outlined in section 128(a)(1) of the CAA. Therefore, section 128(a)(1) of the CAA is not applicable in Indiana.
Under section 128(a)(2), the head of the executive agency with the power to approve enforcement orders or permits must adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest. IC 13-13-8-11 “Disclosure of conflicts of interest” contains provisions that adequately satisfy the requirements of section 128(a)(2). This section requires that each member of the board shall fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest relating to permits or enforcement orders. IC 13-13-8-4 defines the membership of the board, and the commissioner (of IDEM) or his/her designee is explicitly included as a member of the board. Therefore, when evaluated together in the context of section 128(a)(2), the commissioner (of IDEM) or his/her designee must fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest relating to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. EPA concludes that IDEM's submission as it relates to the state board requirements under section 128 is consistent with applicable CAA requirements. EPA approved these rules on December 6, 2013 (78 FR 77599). Therefore, EPA is proposing that IDEM has satisfied the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2012 PM
States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
The Indiana state rules for monitoring requirements are contained in 326 IAC 3. Additional emissions reporting requirements are found in 326 IAC 2-6. Emission reports are available upon request by EPA or other interested parties. EPA proposes that Indiana has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Memo states that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
326 IAC 1-5 establishes air pollution episode levels based on concentrations of criteria pollutants. This rule requires that emergency reduction plans be submitted to the Commissioner of IDEM by major air pollution sources, and
This section requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.
IDEM continues to update and implement needed revisions to Indiana's SIP as necessary to meet ambient air quality standards. As discussed in previous sections, authority to adopt emissions standards and compliance schedules is found at IC 13-4-8, IC 13-17-3-4, IC 13-17-3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2012 PM
The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.
The evaluation of the submissions from Indiana with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
States must provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements.
IDEM actively participates in the regional planning efforts that include state rule developers, representatives from the FLMs, and other affected stakeholders. Additionally, Indiana is an active member of the Lake Michigan Air Director's Consortium, which consists of collaboration with the States of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2012 PM
Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
IDEM monitors air quality data daily, and reports the air quality index to the interested public and media, if necessary. IDEM also participates in and submits information to EPA's AIRNOW program, and maintains SmogWatch, which is an informational tool created by IDEM to share air quality forecasts for each day. SmogWatch provides daily information about ground-level ozone, particulate matter concentration levels, health information, and monitoring data for seven regions in Indiana. In addition, IDEM maintains a publicly available Web site that allows interested members of the community and other stakeholders to view current monitoring data summaries, including those for PM
States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD. IDEM's PSD program in the context of infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed above in the paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J).
Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met all of the infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD associated with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2012 PM
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2012 PM
SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
IDEM continues to review the potential impact of all major and some minor new and modified sources using computer models. Indiana's rules regarding air quality modeling are contained in 326 IAC 2-2-4, 326 IAC 2-2-5, 326 IAC 2-2-6, and 326 IAC 2-2-7. These modeling data are available to EPA or other interested parties upon request. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2012 PM
This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.
IDEM implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62969); revisions to the program were approved on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52615). In addition to the title V permit program, IDEM's EPA-approved PSD program, specifically contained in 326 IAC 2-1.1-07, contains the provisions, requirements, and structures associated with the costs for reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various types of permits. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 2012 PM
States must consult with and allow participation from local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
Any IDEM rulemaking procedure contained in IC 13-14-9 requires public participation in the SIP development process. In addition, IDEM ensures that the public hearing requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 are satisfied during the SIP development process. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2012 PM
EPA is proposing to approve most elements of a submission from Indiana certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM
In the above table, the key is as follows:
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from passenger vehicles. We are proposing to approve the suspension of a local rule that regulated these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by October 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0154 at
Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4152,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On March 28, 2014, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted Washoe County District Board of Health (WCDBOH) Regulations Governing Air Quality Management Section 040.095, “Oxygen Content of Motor Vehicle Fuel,” as amended by the WCDBOH on December 24, 2013. On September 28, 2014, the submittal for Section 040.095 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
The WCDBOH has adopted other versions of Section 040.095, most recently the version adopted September 22, 2005 and submitted to the EPA on November 4, 2005. We approved this version of the rule into the SIP on July 3, 2008 (73 FR 38124). While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
The submitted revision to Section 040.095 suspends all requirements of the SIP-approved rule, which implements Washoe County's oxygenated fuel program. This program requires gasoline sold in Washoe County to contain 2.7 percent oxygenate by weight between October 1 and January 31 as a means of reducing CO emissions. The Truckee Meadows area of Washoe County has historically been designated nonattainment for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or “Standard”),
As a general matter, under CAA section 110(l), the EPA may approve relaxations or suspensions of control measures so long as doing so would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or otherwise conflict with applicable CAA requirements. The EPA has evaluated the revision to Section 040.095 to determine whether suspension of the Washoe County's oxygenated fuel program would interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance or conflict with other CAA requirements.
We believe this SIP submittal is consistent with CAA 110(l) requirements regarding restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures. The WCDBOH's analysis of future CO emissions in Washoe County demonstrates continued compliance with the CO NAAQS as a result of other state measures, such as the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, and federal measures such as the Renewable Fuels Standard. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule suspension because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 2, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule suspension, our final action will incorporate this revision into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the WCDBOH rule described in this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this material available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed specifications; request for comments.
NMFS proposes a 2017 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS would allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures would support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
NMFS must receive comments by September 15, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0004, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.
NMFS proposes to specify a 2017 catch limit of 2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory. NMFS would also authorize each U.S. Pacific territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 2,000-mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels that are permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). Those vessels must be identified in a specified fishing agreement with the applicable territory. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended these specifications. The proposed catch and allocation limits and accountability measures are identical to those that NMFS specified for each U.S. territory in 2016 (81 FR 63145, September 14, 2016).
NMFS will monitor catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the longline fisheries of each U.S Pacific territory, including catches made by U.S. longline vessels operating under specified fishing agreements. The criteria that a specified fishing agreement must meet, and the process for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna, will follow the procedures in 50 CFR 665.819 (Territorial catch and fishing effort limits). When NMFS projects that a territorial catch or allocation limit will be reached, NMFS would, as an accountability measure, prohibit the catch and retention of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be reached), and/or vessels in a specified fishing agreement (if the allocation limit is projected to be reached).
On March 20, 2017, in
NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed action and will announce the final specifications in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the applicable FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.
In this action, NMFS proposes a 2017 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)). Without this catch limit, these U.S territories would not be subject to a limit because, as Participating Territories to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), they do not have a bigeye tuna limit under international measures adopted by the WCPFC. The proposed action would also allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement. Each agreement must meet the established criteria in 50 CFR 665.819. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable U.S. territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be reached), or by vessels operating under the applicable specified fishing agreement (if the allocation limit is projected to be reached). Payments under the specified fishing agreements support fisheries development in the U.S. Pacific territories and the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
This proposed action would directly apply to longline vessels permitted Federally under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (Pelagic FEP). Specifically, this action would apply to Hawaii longline limited entry, American Samoa longline limited entry, and Western Pacific general longline permit holders.
As of July 2017, there were 145 vessels with Hawaii permits (out of 164 total) and 44 with American Samoa permits (out of 60 total). There were no Western Pacific general longline permits as of July 2017.
Based on logbook data collected by NMFS, Hawaii longline vessels landed approximately 33,401,000 lb of fish valued at $101,582,000 in 2016. With 142 vessels making either a deep- or shallow-set trip in 2016, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by Hawaii-based longline fisheries averaged about $715,336 per vessel in 2016. Fishery performance data for the American Samoa longline fishery in 2016 is not yet available. In 2015, American Samoa-based longline vessels landed approximately 4,756,195 lb of fish, of which 4,662,869 lb was sold, valued at $4,994,004. Albacore made up the largest proportion of longline commercial landings at 3,475,497 lb. With 18 active longline vessels in 2015, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by American Samoa-based longline fisheries averaged about $277,445 per vessel in 2015.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 114111) 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. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels permitted Federally under the Pelagic FEP are small entities,
The Pelagic FEP established a process by which NMFS could specify catch and/or effort limits for pelagic fisheries in American Samoa, Guam and CNMI, regardless of whether the WCPFC adopts a limit for those entities or not. The Pelagic FEP also allows NMFS to authorize the government of each territory to allocate a portion of their catch and/or effort limits through territorial fishing agreements. Specifically, bigeye tuna landed by vessels included in a fishing agreement are attributed to the U.S territory to which the agreement applies, and not counted towards the U.S. bigeye tuna limit established by NMFS under a separate authority in 50 CFR 300, subpart O.
In accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300, subpart O, vessels that possess both an American Samoa and Hawaii longline permit are not subject to the U.S bigeye tuna limit. Therefore, these vessels may retain bigeye tuna and land fish in Hawaii after the date that NMFS projects the fishery would reach that limit. Further, catches of bigeye tuna made by such vessels are attributed to American Samoa, provided the fish was not caught in the EEZ around Hawaii. In 2016, all dual American Samoa/Hawaii longline permitted vessels were included in the fishing agreement with CNMI. Therefore, NMFS attributed bigeye catches by those vessels to the CNMI.
On August 4, 2017, NMFS established a 2017 bigeye tuna catch limit of 3,138 mt applicable to U.S. longline fisheries (82 FR 36341). The 2017 limit is about 12 percent lower than the 2016 limit. It accounts for the planned reduction of the U.S. limit from 3,554 mt in 2016 to 3,345 mt in 2017, and adds a further reduction for exceeding the 2016 limit by 207 mt. Based on preliminary logbook data, NMFS expects the fishery to reach this limit in early September 2017.
The proposed action would potentially benefit the Hawaii fishery by allowing participants to fish under specified fishing agreements with one or
The historical catch of bigeye tuna by the American Samoa longline fleet has been less than 2,000 mt, even including the catch of vessels based in American Samoa, catch by dual permitted vessels that land their catch in Hawaii, and catch attributed to American Samoa from U.S. vessels under specified fishing agreements. No longline fishing has occurred in Guam or the CNMI since 2011.
Under the proposed action, longline fisheries managed under the Pelagic FEP are not expected to expand substantially nor change the manner in which they are currently conducted, (
For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This action is exempt from review under the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request a renewal of the approved information collection regarding accreditation of laboratories, transactions, and exemptions. The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2018. There are no changes to the existing information collection.
Submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS is requesting a renewal of the approved information collection regarding accreditation of laboratories, transactions, and exemptions. The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2018. There are no changes to the existing information collection.
FSIS requires meat and poultry establishments and import facilities to apply for a grant of inspection before receiving Federal inspection (9 CFR 304.1 & 381.17). FSIS also requires plants that wish to receive voluntary inspection to apply for service (9 CFR 350.5, 351.4, 352.3, & 362.3). Establishments that wish to export or import product must also submit certain documents to the Agency.
The FMIA (21 U.S.C. 642), the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460(b)), and the EPIA (21 U.S.C. 1040) require certain parties to keep records that fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in their businesses related to relevant animal carcasses and parts and egg products.
FSIS requires accredited non-Federal analytical laboratories to maintain certain paperwork and records (9 CFR 439.20 & 590.580). The Agency uses this collected information to ensure that meat and poultry establishments and egg products plants provide safe, wholesome, and not adulterated product, and that non-Federal laboratories act in accordance with FSIS regulations.
In addition, FSIS also requires establishments to keep records to ensure that meat and poultry products exempted from Agency inspection are not commingled with inspected meat and poultry products (9 CFR 303.1(b)(3) & 381.175), and that firms qualifying for a retail store exemption who have violated the provisions of that exemption are no longer in violation (9 CFR 303.1(d)(3) & 381.10(d)(3)).
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request a revision of the approved information collection related to the Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP). The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2018. Based on a decrease in the number of SIP approvals that occurred as a result of the implementation of the New Poultry Inspection System, FSIS has decreased its total annual burden estimate by 45,511 hours.
Submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.
The Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP) offers incentives to meat and poultry slaughter establishments to
In return for meeting the conditions of SIP, the Agency grants establishments appropriate waivers of certain regulatory requirements, based upon establishment proposals and documentation, under FSIS regulations at 9 CFR 303.1(h) and 381.3(b). These regulations specifically provide for the Administrator to waive for limited periods any provisions of the regulations to permit experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, or processing techniques may be tested to facilitate definite improvements. Establishments participating in SIP agree to the conditions of SIP regarding pathogen testing and sharing of test result data with FSIS.
FSIS is requesting a revision of the approved information collection related to SIP. The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2018. Based on a decrease in the number of SIP approvals that occurred as a result of the implementation of the New Poultry Inspection System, FSIS has decreased its total annual burden estimate by 45,511 hours.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to request a renewal of the approved information collection regarding its Web-based Public Health Information System (PHIS). There are no changes to the existing information collection except a revision to remove the FSIS Form 9080-4, Product List, because FSIS no longer uses it. This will result in a reduction in burden of 41,667 hours. The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2018.
Submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS is requesting a revision of the approved information collection regarding the Public Health Information System (PHIS). There are no changes to the existing information collection except a revision to remove the FSIS Form 9080-4, Product List, because FSIS no longer uses it. This will result in a reduction in burden of 41,667 hours. The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2018.
FSIS uses a PHIS, a Web-based system that improves FSIS inspection operations and facilitates industry members' applications for inspection, export, and import of meat, poultry, and egg products. With PHIS, industry members are able to submit forms through a series of screens. Paper forms are also available to firms that do not wish to use PHIS.
To submit information through PHIS, firms' employees register for a USDA eAuthentication account with Level-2 access. An eAuthentication account enables individuals inside and outside of USDA to obtain user-identification accounts to access a wide range of USDA applications through the Internet. The Level-2 access provides users the ability to conduct official electronic business transactions. To register for a Level-2 eAuthentication account, the user needs to have access to the Internet and a valid email address. To learn more about eAuthentication and how to register for an account, visit
Consistent with its current procedures, FSIS continues to collect information within PHIS from firms regarding the application for inspection and the export and import of meat, poultry, and egg products. Firms may complete new forms (screen sets) in PHIS when exporting meat, poultry, and egg products (9 CFR 322.2, 381.107, and 590.200). FSIS is requesting the continued use of the following forms and collection of information for them through screen sets within PHIS.
A Transfer Certificate is submitted by exporters to FSIS when product is transferred from one establishment or plant to another facility before export.
A “Split/Consolidations” Certificate is submitted by exporters to indicate that an export shipment approved by FSIS for export is being split and sent to two separate destinations or that two or more FSIS-approved export shipments to the same country are being combined.
FSIS Form 9080-3, Establishment Application for Export, is completed by exporters to specify countries where they wish to export product (9 CFR 322.2 and 381.105). FSIS uses this information to track the export of product.
FSIS Form 9060-6, The Application for Export Certificate, provides FSIS with data necessary to facilitate the export of product (9 CFR 322.2 and 381.105).
FSIS Form 9010-1, Application for the Return of Exported Products to the United States, is used by the exporter of product that is exported and then returned to this country, to notify FSIS and to arrange for the product's entry (9 CFR 327.17, 381.209, and 590.965).
The following three forms are available in PHIS but not as a series of screens. FSIS is requesting the continued use of these forms.
FSIS Form 5200-2, Application for Federal Inspection, is submitted by all official establishments in order to receive a grant of inspection (9 CFR 304.1 and 381.17).
FSIS Form 5200-6, Application for Approval of Voluntary Inspection, is submitted by all establishments that want voluntary inspection, (9 CFR 350.5, 351.4, 352.3, and 362.3).
FSIS Form 5200-15, Hours of Operation, is submitted when an establishment wants to notify the Agency of a change in its hours of operation (9 CFR 307.4, 381.37, 590.124, and 592.96).
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.
Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by October 30, 2017.
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164-S, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, Facsimile: (202) 720-8435. Email:
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an existing information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for extension. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 may be sent to: Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 5164-S, STOP 1522, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, Facsimile: (202) 720-8435, email:
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Management Analyst, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660; FAX: (202) 720-8435.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission briefing and business meeting.
Friday, September 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. EST.
National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20245 (Entrance on F Street NW.).
Brian Walch, phone: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116; email:
This business meeting is open to the public. There will also be a call-in line for individuals who desire to listen to the presentations: 800-310-7032; Conference ID 799-7226.
Persons with disabilities who need accommodation should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 3:00 p.m. (MDT) on Thursday, October 18, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the progress made on the report on elder abuse and next steps.
Thursday, October 18, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. (MDT).
To be held via teleconference:
Evelyn Bohor,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-857-6163; Conference ID: 2621087. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-877-857-6163, Conference ID: 2621087. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, November 20, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MDT) on Thursday, September 21, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct orientation for the newly appointed Committee and discuss current civil rights issues of importance in the state.
Thursday, September 21, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. (MDT).
To be held via teleconference:
Evelyn Bohor,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number:1-888-857-6930; Conference ID: 3629826. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-857-6930, Conference ID: 3629826. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, October 23, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
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 Tennessee (State) Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 to review, discuss and approve the hearing transcript on civil asset forfeiture.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 12:30 p.m. EST.
The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 888-715-1402, conference ID: 6317429.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-715-1402, conference ID: 6317429. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by September 29, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of the renewal of the BEA Advisory Committee Charter.
Please note that the U.S. Department of Commerce renewed the Charter for the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee on June 9, 2017. It has been determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest.
Dondi Staunton, Designated Federal Official, Communications Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20233; Telephone (301) 278-9798; Email
The Committee was established September 2, 1999, to advise the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, industry, international, and regional economic accounts.
Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), Facilities Services Directorate (FSD), Enterprise Performance and IT Management Directorate (EPITMD), DoD.
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), Facilities Services Directorate (FSD), Enterprise Performance and IT Management Directorate (EPITMD), ATTN: Mr. Jeremy Consolvo, 1550 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, or call the WHS/FSD/EPITMD at (703) 697-2224.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
This system was developed to improve the timeliness, quality, and quantity of feedback given by customers to DoD service providers. Customers are able to access an appropriate comment card in ICE by going directly to the ICE Web site and search for the service provider or through a link provided by a service provider. They are able to quickly fill out a short online questionnaire related to customer satisfaction. Customer responses are sent to the appropriate facility and/or service manager. The data resides in the ICE system. This timely feedback allows service providers to quickly improve the quality of their services, thereby enhancing the quality of life for all members of the defense community. It also gives community commanders, deputy commanders in chiefs, and others an opportunity to review, assess, and improve current service quality.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Cuyama Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 14, 2017.
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-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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
Southeastern Power Administration, (Southeastern), Department of Energy.
Notice of interim approval.
The Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy, confirmed and approved, on an interim basis new rate schedules SOCO-1-F, SOCO-2-F, SOCO-3-F, SOCO-4-F, ALA-1-O, Duke-1-F, Duke-2-F, Duke-3-F, Duke-4-F, Santee-1-F, Santee-2-F, Santee-3-F, Santee-4-F, SCE&G-1-F, SCE&G-2-F, SCE&G-3-F, SCE&G-4-F, Pump-1-A, and Replacement-1. These rate schedules are applicable to Southeastern power sold to existing preference customers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The rate schedules are approved on an interim basis through September 30, 2022, and are subject to confirmation and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on a final basis.
Approval of rates on an interim basis is effective October 1, 2017.
Virgil Hobbs, Assistant Administrator, Finance and Marketing, Southeastern Power Administration, Department of
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, by Order issued April 2, 2013, in Docket No. EF12-4-000 (143 FERC ¶ 62,002), confirmed and approved Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1-E, SOCO-2-E, SOCO-3-E, SOCO-4-E, ALA-1-N, MISS-1-N, Duke-1-E, Duke-2-E, Duke-3-E, Duke-4-E, Santee-1-E, Santee-2-E, Santee-3-E, Santee-4-E, SCE&G-1-E, SCE&G-2-E, SCE&G-3-E, SCE&G-4-E, Pump-1-A, Pump-2, Replacement-1, and Regulation-1 through September 30, 2017. This order replaces these rate schedules on an interim basis, subject to final approval by FERC.
Pursuant to Sections 302(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern), were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated to Southeastern's Administrator the authority to develop power and transmission rates, to the Deputy Secretary of Energy the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on interim basis, and to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. This rate order is issued by the Deputy Secretary pursuant to said delegation.
Power from the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina Projects is presently sold under Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1-E, SOCO-2-E, SOCO-3-E, SOCO-4-E, ALA-1-N, MISS-1-N, Duke-1-E, Duke-2-E, Duke-3-E, Duke-4-E, Santee-1-E, Santee-2-E, Santee-3-E, Santee-4-E, SCE&G-1-E, SCE&G-2-E, SCE&G-3-E, SCE&G-4-E, Pump-1-A, Pump-2, Replacement-1, and Regulation-1. These rate schedules were approved by the FERC in docket number EF12-4-000 on April 2, 2013, for a period ending September 30, 2017 (143 FERC ¶ 62,002).
Notice of a proposed rate adjustment was published in the
Comments received from interested parties are summarized below. Southeastern's response follows each comment.
An examination of Southeastern's revised system power repayment study, prepared in July 2017, for the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System shows that with the proposed rates, all system power costs are paid within the appropriate repayment period required by existing law and DOE Order RA 6120.2. The Administrator of Southeastern Power Administration has certified that the rates are consistent with applicable law and that they are the lowest possible rates to customers consistent with sound business principles.
Southeastern has reviewed the possible environmental impacts of the rate adjustment under consideration and has concluded that, because the
Information regarding these rates, including studies and other supporting materials and transcripts of the public information and comment forum, is available for public review in the offices of Southeastern Power Administration, 1166 Athens Tech Road, Elberton, Georgia 30635, and in the Power Marketing Liaison Office, James Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective October 1, 2017, attached Wholesale Power Rate Schedules SOCO-1-F, SOCO-2-F, SOCO-3-F, SOCO-4-F, ALA-1-O, Duke-1-F, Duke-2-F, Duke-3-F, Duke-4-F, Santee-1-F, Santee-2-F, Santee-3-F, Santee-4-F, SCE&G-1-F, SCE&G-2-F, SCE&G-3-F, SCE&G-4-F, Pump-1-A, and Replacement-1. The Rate Schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2022, unless such period is extended or until the FERC confirms and approves the schedules or substitute Rate Schedules on a final basis.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Incorporated (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$3.54 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month estimated as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The distribution charges may be modified by FERC pursuant to application by the Company under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act or the Government under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT or the distribution charges may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
$0.0806 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
$0.11 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
$0.0483 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' OATT.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. As of March 2017, applicable energy losses are as follows:
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$3.54 per kilowatt of total contract demand per estimated as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). The distribution charges may be modified by FERC pursuant to application by the Company under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act or the Government under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT or the distribution charges may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
$0.11 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' OATT.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. As of March 2017, applicable energy losses are as follows:
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Southern Company Services, Incorporated (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Projects) and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal
$0.0806 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
$0.0483 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida served through the transmission facilities of Southern Company Services, Inc. (hereinafter called the Company) or the Georgia Integrated Transmission System. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Projects) and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.
The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to the PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (hereinafter called the Cooperative).
This rate schedule shall be applicable to power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters, and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under contract between the Cooperative and the Government. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be three-phase alternating current at a nominal frequency of 60 Hertz and shall be delivered at the Walter F. George, West Point, and Robert F. Henry Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Southern Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.
The charges for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services shall be governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in the proceeding involving Southern Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The Government will sell to the Cooperative and the Cooperative will purchase from the Government those quantities of energy specified by contract as available to the Cooperative for scheduling on a weekly basis.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be transmitted and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Energy Carolinas (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$1.32 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses of three per cent (3%) as of March 2017). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. These losses shall be effective until modified by FERC, pursuant to application by the Company under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act or SEPA under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act or otherwise.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be transmitted pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Energy Carolinas (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$1.32 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses of three per cent (3%) as of March 2017). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system. These losses shall be effective until modified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, pursuant to application by the Company under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act or SEPA under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act or otherwise.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and Duke Energy Carolinas (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Savannah River Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in North Carolina and South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of Duke Energy Carolinas (hereinafter called the Company) and the Customer. The Customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement with the Company. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude modifications to the aforementioned contracts to allow an eligible customer to elect service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Savannah River Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter call the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Authority's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Authority's rate.
$1.86 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission rate is subject to annual adjustment on July 1 of each year, and will be computed subject to the formula contained in Appendix A to the Government-Authority Contract.
Proceedings before FERC involving the Authority's Open Access Transmission Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses of two per cent (2%) as of March 2017). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Authority's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter call the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Authority's rate.
$1.86 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission rate is subject to annual adjustment on July 1 of each year, and will be computed subject to the formula contained in Appendix A to the Government-Authority Contract.
Proceedings before FERC involving the Authority's Open Access Transmission Tariff may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses of two per cent (2%) as of March 2017). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Authority's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter call the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). The customer is responsible for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Authority's rate.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter call the Customer) in South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter called the Authority). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Authority. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Authority's rate.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Authority (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
When energy delivery to the Customer's system for the account of the Government is reduced or interrupted, and such reduction or interruption is not due to conditions on the Customer's system, the demand charge for the month shall be appropriately reduced as to kilowatts of such capacity which have been interrupted or reduced for each day in accordance with the following formula:
This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled and scheduled pursuant to contracts between the Government and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$2.86 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract which the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.
This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$2.86 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.
This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina to whom power may be wheeled pursuant to contracts between the Government and the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points of the Customer on the Company's transmission and distribution system.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of the Company's rate.
$2.86 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month as of March 2017 is presented for illustrative purposes.
The initial transmission charge will be the Customer's ratable share of the transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government. The transmission charges are governed by and subject to refund based upon the determination in proceedings before FERC involving the Company's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT).
Proceedings before FERC involving the OATT may result in the separation of charges currently included in the transmission rate. In this event, the Government may charge the Customer for any and all separate transmission and distribution charges paid by the Government in behalf of the Customer.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Company's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.
This rate schedule shall be available public bodies and cooperatives (any one of which is hereinafter called the Customer) in South Carolina served through the transmission facilities of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter called the Company). The customer is responsible for providing a scheduling arrangement with the Government and for providing a transmission arrangement. Nothing in this rate schedule shall preclude an eligible customer from electing service under another rate schedule.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale of power and accompanying energy generated at the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond, Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry, West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. This rate schedule does not apply to energy from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects.
The electric capacity and energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the Projects.
The monthly rate for capacity, energy, and generation services provided under this rate schedule for the period specified shall be:
$4.09 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
12.33 Mills per kilowatt-hour.
$0.12 per kilowatt of total contract demand per month.
Additional rates for Transmission, System Control, Reactive, and Regulation Services provided under this rate schedule shall be the rates charged Southeastern Power Administration by the Company. Future adjustments to these rates will become effective upon acceptance for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Company's rate.
The contract demand is the amount of capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract that the Government is obligated to supply and the Customer is entitled to receive.
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the company (less applicable losses).
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00
The Customer shall at its own expense provide, install, and maintain on its side of each delivery point the equipment necessary to protect and control its own system. In so doing, the installation, adjustment, and setting of all such control and protective equipment at or near the point of delivery shall be coordinated with that which is installed by and at the expense of the Company on its side of the delivery point.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom power is provided pursuant to contracts between the Government and the Customer.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale energy generated from pumping operations at the Carters and Richard B. Russell Projects and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer. The energy will be segregated from energy from other pumping operations.
The energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points provided for under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.
The rate for energy sold under this rate schedule for the months specified shall be:
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Facilitator (less any losses required by the Facilitator). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Facilitator's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
This rate schedule shall be available to public bodies and cooperatives (any one of whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom power is provided pursuant to contracts between the Government and the Customer.
This rate schedule shall be applicable to the sale at wholesale energy purchased to meet contract minimum energy and sold under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.
The energy supplied hereunder will be delivered at the delivery points provided for under appropriate contracts between the Government and the Customer.
The rate for energy sold under this rate schedule for the months specified shall be:
The Government will sell to the Customer and the Customer will purchase from the Government energy each billing month equivalent to a percentage specified by contract of the energy made available to the Facilitator (less any losses required by the Facilitator). The Customer's contract demand and accompanying energy will be allocated proportionately to its individual delivery points served from the Facilitator's system.
The billing month for power sold under this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on the last day of each calendar month.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement pursuant to CERCLA, with the City of New York (“Settling Party”) concerning the Wolff-Alport Superfund Site (“Site”), located in Queens County, New York.
The Site includes portions of the former Wolff-Alport Chemical Company facility and nearby areas, including businesses, public sidewalks, city sewers, and nearby streets, where hazardous substances including radioactive contamination were disposed or have migrated. Settling Party is the owner of property which constitutes a portion of the Site.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices at 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Comments should reference the Wolff-Alport Superfund Site, Queens County, New York, Index No. CERCLA-02-2017-2009. To request a copy of the proposed settlement agreement, please contact the EPA employee identified below.
Jean Regna, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Email:
The Settling Party agrees to pay EPA $659,037.00 in reimbursement of EPA's past response costs paid at or in connection with the Site. The settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take administrative action against the Settling Party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to the response costs related to the work at the Site enumerated in the settlement agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Notice.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) publishes the names of the persons selected to serve on its SES Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.
Upon publication.
Written comments about this final rule can be emailed to
Gina K. Grippando, Counsel for Regulatory and Public Affairs, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, DC 20424, (202) 218-7776.
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 the FLRA's PRB.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 14, 2017.
1.
1.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)(OMB Control Number 0920-0607, expiration 10/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Violence is a public health problem. The World Health Organization has estimated that 804,000 suicides and 475,000 homicides occurred in the year 2012 worldwide. Violence in the United States is a particular problem for the young; suicide and homicide were among the top 4 leading causes of death for Americans 10-34 and 1-34 years of age in 2015, respectively. In 2002 Congress approved the first appropriation to start the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). NVDRS is coordinated and funded at the federal level but is dependent on separate data collection efforts managed by the state health department (or their bona fide agent) in each state.
NVDRS is an ongoing surveillance system that captures annual violent death counts and circumstances that precipitate each violent incident. Data on violent death is defined as a death resulting from the intentional use of physical force or power (
This is a revision request for an additional three years to continue data collection efforts of the currently approved information collection project. The purpose of this revision is to (1) implement updates to the web-based system to improve performance, functionality, and accessibility; (2) add new data elements to the system and minimal revisions to the NVDRS coding manual; (3) modify burden hours to account for the increase in violent deaths in the U.S. since 2003; and (4) to decrease the number of funded reporting state health departments from 58 to 56.
The estimated annual burden hours are 34,250. There are no costs to respondents.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing support for the most current version of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), end of support for earlier versions of MedDRA, and an update to the FDA Data Standards Catalog (Catalog) for study data provided in new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and investigational new drug applications (INDs) to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).
Submit either electronic or written comments on this document 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.”
•
Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1115, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5333,
On December 17, 2014, FDA published final guidance for industry “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” (eStudy Data) posted on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at
FDA currently supports and requires MedDRA for the coding of adverse events in studies submitted to FDA's CBER or CDER in NDAs, ANDAs, BLAs, and INDs in the electronic common technical document (eCTD) format. However, the requirement to code adverse events using MedDRA in the most current version (available at
Generally, the studies included in a submission are conducted over many years and may have used different MedDRA versions to code adverse events. The expectation is that sponsors or applicants will use the most current version of MedDRA at the time of study start. However, there is no requirement to recode earlier studies. The transition date for support and requirement to use the most current version of MedDRA is March 15, 2018. Although the use of the most current version is supported as of this
FDA will no longer support version 8 or earlier of MedDRA. FDA support for earlier versions of MedDRA will end for studies that start after March 15, 2019. The FDA Data Standards Catalog will be updated to list March 15, 2019, as the “date support ends.” Studies that start after March 15, 2019, will be required to use the most current version of MedDRA.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Policy Clarification and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions for Ultrasonic Diathermy Devices—Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” When final, this draft guidance will clarify FDA's policy related to compliance with applicable performance standards and conformance to International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) consensus standards for ultrasonic diathermy devices. This draft guidance will also provide recommendations for information to provide in 510(k) submissions for ultrasonic diathermy devices. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 30, 2017.
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.”
•
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Jismi Johnson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1524, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6424.
Ultrasonic diathermy devices are class II medical devices regulated under 21 CFR 890.5300(a),
When final, this draft guidance will clarify FDA's policy related to compliance with applicable performance standards and conformance to IEC consensus standards for ultrasonic diathermy devices. If firms provide a declaration of conformity with the relevant provisions of the current FDA recognized versions of the IEC 60601-2-5 and IEC 61689 standards, FDA does not intend to consider whether firms comply with certain requirements of 21 CFR 1050.10. This draft guidance will also provide recommendations for information to provide in 510(k) submissions for ultrasonic diathermy devices.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on policy clarification and premarket notification (510(k)) submissions for ultrasonic diathermy devices. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
The draft guidance also 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 part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 1002 through 1050 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0025.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices.” FDA is issuing this guidance to clarify how we evaluate real-world data to determine whether it may be sufficiently relevant and reliable to generate the types of real-world evidence that can be used in FDA
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.”
•
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Benjamin Eloff, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8528; and Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
To protect and promote public health, FDA needs to understand and evaluate the available evidence related to regulated products. For medical devices, available evidence is traditionally comprised of non-clinical and in some cases, clinical studies conducted and provided to FDA by the device manufacturer or sponsor. However, FDA recognizes that a wealth of data covering medical device experience exists and is routinely collected in the course of treatment and management of patients. Under certain circumstances, these real-world data (RWD) may constitute real-world evidence (RWE), or clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of RWD, that may be of sufficient quality to help inform or augment FDA's understanding of the benefit-risk profile of devices at various points in their life cycle, and could potentially be used to aid FDA in regulatory decision-making.
This document describes the characteristics and sources of RWD and characteristics of RWE that may be sufficient for use in making various regulatory decisions. Because of its nature, the quality (
This guidance does not affect any Federal, State or local laws or regulations or foreign laws or regulations that may otherwise be applicable to the use or collection of RWE and that provide protections for human subjects or patient privacy. This guidance should be used to complement, but not supersede, other device-specific and good clinical practice guidance documents. FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance that published in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on use of real-world evidence to support regulatory decision-making for medical devices. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance. 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 part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E (premarket approval), have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H (humanitarian device exemption), have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 (investigational device exemption) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 (postmarket surveillance) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0449; the collections of information in 21 CFR 50.23 (exception from general requirements for informed consent) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0586; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 54 (financial disclosure by clinical investigators) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0396; the collections of information in 21 CFR 56.115 (institutional review boards records) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 subpart B (informed consent of human subjects) and 56 (institutional review boards) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755. The collections of information in the guidance “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) announces an expert panel meeting and is obtaining comment on a proposed approach to genomic dose-response modeling. Prior to the expert panel meeting, NTP will host four webinars that present other approaches to genomic dose-response modeling. The expert panel meeting and four webinar presentations leading up to the meeting are open to the public. Registration is requested for both in-person meeting attendance and oral comment; registration is required to access the meeting webcast. URLs for live and archived pre-meeting webinars will be available at
Anna Stamatogiannakis, ICF, 2635 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200, Durham, NC, USA 27713. Phone: (919) 293-1652, Fax: (919) 293-1645, Email:
Following the meeting, a report of the panel meeting will be prepared and made available on the NTP Web site. Individuals are encouraged to access the meeting Web site to stay abreast of the most current information regarding the meeting.
Oral public comment at this meeting is welcome, with time set aside on October 23 for the formal presentation of oral remarks on the draft document. In addition to in-person oral comments at the NIEHS, public comments can be presented by teleconference line. There will be 50 lines for this call; availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. The lines will be open from 8:30 a.m. each day until adjournment. Oral comments will be received only during the formal public comment periods indicated on the preliminary agenda. The access number for the teleconference line will be provided to registrants by email prior to the meeting. Each organization is allowed one time slot. At least 7 minutes will be allotted to each time slot, and if time permits, the allotment may be extended to 10 minutes at the discretion of the chair. In addition to the formal public comment period, there will be several opportunities in the agenda for ad hoc comments.
Persons wishing to make oral comments during the formal comment period on October 23 are asked to register online at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are proposing to revise an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, 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 Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service 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.
We administer 373 hunting programs and 310 fishing programs on 411 refuges and wetland management districts. We only collect user information at about 20 percent of these refuges. Information that we plan to collect will help us:
• Administer and monitor hunting and fishing programs on refuges.
• Distribute hunting and fishing permits in a fair and equitable manner to eligible participants.
We use nine application and report forms associated with hunting and fishing on refuges. We may not allow all opportunities on all refuges; therefore, we developed different forms to simplify the process and avoid confusion for applicants. The currently approved forms are available online at
We use the following application forms when we assign areas, dates, and/or types of hunts via a drawing because of limited resources, high demand, or when a permit is needed to hunt. We issue application forms for specific periods, usually seasonally or annually.
• FWS Form 3-2354 (Quota Deer Hunt Application).
• FWS Form 3-2355 (Waterfowl Lottery Application).
• FWS Form 3-2356 (Big/Upland Game Hunt Application).
• FWS Form 3-2357 (Migratory Bird Hunt Application).
• FWS Form 3-2358 (Fishing/Shrimping/Crabbing Application).
Forms 3-2354 through 3-2358 collect information on:
• Applicant (name, address, phone number) so that we can notify applicants of their selection.
• User preferences (dates, areas, method) so that we can distribute users equitably.
• Whether or not the applicant is applying for a special opportunity for disabled or youth hunters.
• Age of youth hunter(s) so that we can establish eligibility.
We ask users to report on their success after their experience so that we can evaluate hunting/fishing quality and resource impacts. We use the following activity reports, which we distribute during appropriate seasons, as determined by State or Federal regulations.
• FWS Form 3-2359 (Big Game Harvest Report).
• FWS Form 3-2360 (Fishing Report).
• FWS Form 3-2361 (Migratory Bird Hunt Report).
• FWS Form 3-2362 (Upland/Small Game/Furbearer Report).
Forms 3-2359 through 3-2362 collect information on:
• Names of users so we can differentiate between responses.
• City and State of residence so that we can better understand if users are local or traveling.
• Dates, time, and number in party so we can identify use trends and allocate staff and resources.
• Details of success by species so that we can evaluate quality of experience and resource impacts.
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
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, 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 Service; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Service enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Service 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.
• Monitor the quality of services provided by commercial guides.
• Gauge client satisfaction with the services.
• Assess the impacts of the activity on refuge resources.
The client is the best source of information on the quality of commercial guiding services. We collect:
• Client name.
• Guide name(s).
• Type of guided activity.
• Dates and location of guided activity.
• Information on the services received, such as the client's expectations, safety, environmental impacts, and client's overall satisfaction.
We encourage respondents to provide any additional comments that they wish regarding the guide service or refuge experience, and ask whether or not they wish to be contacted for additional information.
The above information, in combination with State-required guide activity reports and contacts with guides and clients in the field, provides a comprehensive method for monitoring permitted commercial guide activities. A regular program of client evaluation helps refuge managers detect potential problems with guide services so that we can take corrective actions promptly. In addition, we use this information during the competitive selection process for big game and sport fishing guide permits to evaluate an applicant's ability to provide a quality guiding service.
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 Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 30, 2017.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to the BOEM Information Collection Clearance Officer, Anna Atkinson, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-DIR, Sterling, Virginia 20166; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Anna Atkinson by email, or by telephone at 703-787-1025.
We, BOEM, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on 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 BOEM? (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner? (3) is the estimate of burden accurate? (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? and (5) how might BOEM 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.
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 Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25 authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. All G&G permits are subject to cost recovery, and BOEM regulations specify service fees for these requests.
Regulations to carry out these responsibilities are contained in 30 CFR part 551 and are the subject of this information collection renewal. BOEM uses the information to:
• Identify oil, gas, sulfur, and mineral resources in the OCS;
• ensure the receipt of fair value for mineral resources;
• ensure that the exploration activities do not cause harm to the environment or persons, or create unsafe operations and conditions, damage historical or archaeological sites, or interference with other uses;
• analyze and evaluate preliminary or planned drilling activities;
• monitor progress and activities in the OCS;
• acquire G&G data and information collected under a Federal permit offshore; and
• determine eligibility for reimbursement from the government for certain costs.
BOEM uses information collected to understand the G&G characteristics of oil- and gas-bearing physiographic regions of the OCS. The information aids the Secretary in obtaining a proper balance among the potential for environmental damage, the discovery of oil and gas, and associated impacts on affected coastal States.
In this renewal, BOEM is renewing form BOEM-0327—Application for Permit to Conduct Geological or Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources of Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf. This form consists of the requirements for G&G activities requiring Permits and Notices, along with the application that the respondent submits to BOEM for approval, as well as a nonexclusive use agreement for scientific research, if applicable. The requirements portion of the form lets the respondents know the authority, requirements, along with other relevant information for the permit.
Upon BOEM approval of the application, respondents are issued a permit using form BOEM-0328, Permit to Conduct Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources of Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf, for conducting geophysical exploration for mineral resources or scientific research, or form BOEM-0329, Permit to Conduct Geological Exploration for Mineral Resources of Scientific Research on the Outer Continental Shelf, for conducting geological exploration for mineral resources or scientific research. These permits are filled in by BOEM and do not incur a respondent hour burden.
We protect proprietary information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of the Interior's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR part 551.
We estimate the burden for this collection to be about 40,954 hours, and the non-hour burden costs to be $175,044. The following table details the individual components and respective hour burden estimates of this ICR.
The authorities for this action are the OCS Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities information collection. Form ETA-227, Overpayment Detection and Recovery Activities, is the instrument by which the ETA collects the subject information on a quarterly basis from States. Form ETA 227 responses provide data on the number and amounts of fraud and non-fraud overpayments, the methods by which any overpayments were detected, the amounts and methods by which overpayments were collected, the amounts of overpayments waived and written off, the accounts receivable for the overpayments outstanding, and data on criminal/civil actions. Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security Act Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1981-8, Investment of Plan Assets in Certain Types of Short-Term Investments,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the information collection requirements contained in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 1981-8, Investment of Plan Assets in Certain Types of Short-Term Investments, which permits the investment of ERISA covered plan assets that involve the purchase or other acquisition, holding, sale, exchange, or redemption by or on behalf of an employee benefit plan of certain types of short-term investments. The PTE requires two basic disclosure requirements. Both affect only the portion of the exemption dealing with repurchase agreements. The first requirement calls for the repurchase agreements between the seller and the plan to be in writing. The repurchase agreements have a duration of one year or less and may be in the form of a blanket agreement that covers the transactions for the year. The written agreement is intended to put the plan on notice of possible fees associated with the redemption of open-end mutual fund shares. The second requirement obliges the seller of such repurchase agreements to provide the most recent financial statements to the plan at the time of the sale and as the statements are issued. The seller must also represent, either in the repurchase agreement or prior to each repurchase agreement transaction, that, as of the time the transaction is negotiated, there has been no material adverse change in the seller's financial condition since the date the most recent financial statement was furnished that has not been disclosed to the plan fiduciary with whom the written agreement is made. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 section 4975(c) and ERISA section 408 authorize the information collection activities.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On August 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages (Reporting Form ETA-586) information collection that provides data necessary to measure the scope and effect of the program for combining employment and wages covered under the different State laws for the purpose of determining an unemployed worker's entitlement to workers' compensation and to monitor the performance of each State's payment and wage transfer performance. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 section 3304(a)(9)(B) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Department of Labor Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-DM, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the DOL Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes, in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the DOL and its customers and stakeholders. The collections will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “Telephone Point of Purchase Survey.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll free number).
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The purpose of this survey is to develop and maintain a timely list of retail, wholesale, and service establishments where urban consumers shop for specified items. This information is used as the sampling universe for selecting establishments at which prices of specific items are collected and monitored for use in calculating the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The survey has been ongoing since 1980 and also provides expenditure data that allows items that are priced in the CPI to be properly weighted.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Telephone Point of Purchase Survey.
Since 1997, the survey has been administered quarterly via a computer-assisted-telephone-interview. This survey is flexible and creates the possibility of introducing new products into the CPI in a timely manner. The data collected in this survey are necessary for the continuing construction of a current outlet universe from which locations are selected for the price collection needed for calculating the CPI. Furthermore, the TPOPS provides the weights used in selecting the items that are priced at these establishments. This sample design produces an overall CPI market basket that is more reflective of the prices faced and the establishments visited by urban consumers. TPOPS will complete the transition from the 1998 to the 2018 geographic redesign over the next several years, resulting in a reduction of the number of PSUs from 87 to 75 when fully implemented.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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 submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 on the National Science Foundation Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. NSF 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.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received October 2, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
Suzanne H. Plimpton at
This is the second notice for public comment on plans to obtain OMB clearance for the Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology (S&T Attitudes Survey); the first notice was published in the
NSF will publish statistics from the survey in NCSES' SEI report and possibly in InfoBriefs that focus on particular research topics. SEI, Infobriefs, and data tables and figures will be made available electronically on the NSF Web site. Public use data files will also be developed and made freely available via the Internet.
On June 20, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”), and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC,” each a “Clearing Agency,” and collectively, “Clearing Agencies”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-008, SR-FICC-2017-014, and SR-NSCC-2017-008 (collectively, the “Proposed Rule Changes”), respectively, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Proposed Rule Changes would adopt the Clearing Agency Model Risk Management Framework (“Framework”), which would set forth the model risk management practices adopted by the Clearing Agencies. Although the Framework would be a rule of each Clearing Agency, the Proposed Rule Changes do not require any changes to the Rules, By-Laws and Organizational Certificate of DTC, the Rulebook of GSD, the Clearing Rules of MBSD,
In general, the Framework would describe the model risk management practices adopted by the Clearing Agencies. The Framework is designed to help identify, measure, monitor, and manage the risks associated with the design, development, implementation, use, and validation of quantitative models. The Framework would describe (i) governance of the Framework; (ii) key terms; (iii) model inventory procedures; (iv) model validation procedures; (v) model approval process; and (vi) model performance procedures.
The Framework would outline the Clearing Agencies' governance of the Framework itself. The Framework would be owned and managed by (i) the Clearing Agencies' risk management area generally responsible for model validation and control matters, (ii) the DTCC Model Validation and Control Group (“MVC”),
The Framework would provide that (i) any change to the Framework must be approved by the Boards or such committees as may be delegated authority by the Boards, from time to time, pursuant to the Boards' charters, (ii) MVC shall review this Framework no less frequently than annually, and (iii) any and all changes to this Framework are subject to regulatory review and approval.
The Framework would define two key terms: Model and Model Risk. The term “Model” would refer to a quantitative method, system, or approach that applies statistical, economic, financial, or mathematical theories, techniques, and assumptions to process input data into quantitative estimates.
The term “Model Risk” would refer to the potential for adverse consequences from decisions based on incorrect or misused Model outputs and reports, and primarily occurring due to (i) fundamental errors in the design or development of Models; (ii) incorrect Model input or assumptions; (iii) erroneous implementation of Models; (iv) unauthorized or incorrect changes to Models; (v) changes in market conditions rendering existing Models
The Framework would describe the Clearing Agencies' Model inventory procedures. All Clearing Agency Models would be subject to tracking for monitoring purposes within each Clearing Agency (“Model Inventory”).
The Framework would outline how MVC would assign a materiality/complexity index rating to each Model when it is added to a Model Inventory, which would impact the Model's prioritization and authority required for approval.
The Framework would further describe the initial and periodic validation protocols that would be applicable to all Models in the Model Inventory (“Model Validation”).
The Framework would describe the Clearing Agencies' Model Validation procedures. Each new Model would undergo a full Model Validation unless provisionally approved.
The Framework would provide that the DTCC Quantitative Risk Management Financial Engineering Unit, which is functionally separate from MVC, would be responsible for developing, testing, and signing-off on new Clearing Agency Models and enhancements to existing Clearing Agency Models before submitting any such Model to MVC for Model Validation and approval.
The Framework would state that an active Model may require changes in either structure or technique.
In conducting a full Model Validation, MVC would verify that the Model is performing as expected in accordance with its design objectives and business purpose. The full Model Validation standards for any new Model would include, but not be limited to:
• Evaluation of the Model development documentation and testing;
• evaluation of Model theory and assumptions, and identification of potential limitations;
• evaluation of data inputs and parameters;
• review of numerical implementation including replication for certain key Model components, which would vary from Model to Model;
• independent testing, with respect to sensitivity analysis, stress testing, and benchmarking, as appropriate; and
• evaluation of Model outputs, Model performance, and backtesting.
The Framework would provide that all Models approved for use in production also would be subject to periodic Model Validations for purposes of confirming that the Models continue to operate as intended, identifying any deficiencies that would call into question the continuing validity of any such Model.
The Framework would provide that MVC would centrally track all findings from (i) a new Model Validation; (ii) a change in Model Validation; (iii) a periodic Model Validation; or (iv) the implementation of a new Model or Model change.
The Framework would outline the approval process applicable to all new Models. All new Clearing Agency Models, and all material changes to existing Clearing Agency Models, would undergo Model Validation by MVC and must be approved prior to business use.
Regarding any proposed change to any backtesting methodology, prior to implementation thereof (and before any reporting thereof in any management and regulatory report), the Framework would provide that a description of the proposed change and impact study results would be presented to the MRGC for review and approval.
The Framework would provide that provisional approvals with respect to new Clearing Agency Models and material changes to existing Clearing Agency Models may be issued to allow a Model to be published for urgent business use prior to MVC's Model Validation.
The Framework would state that each periodic Model Validation would be presented to the MRGC for its review, and its recommendation for approval to the MRC.
The Framework would state that MVC would be responsible for Model performance monitoring and for each Clearing Agency's backtesting process.
The Framework would describe that periodic reporting to the BRC of each Clearing Agency with regard to Model Risk matters may include:
• Updates of Model Validation findings and the status of annual validations;
• updates on significant Model Risk matters, and on compliance matters with respect to Model Risk policies and procedures (including the Framework); and
• escalation of Model Risk matters as set forth in the market risk tolerance statement, which establishes the Clearing Agencies' Model Risk tolerances (“Market Risk Tolerance Statement”), and subsequent, regular updates with respect thereto.
The Framework would provide that MVC would prepare Model performance monitoring reports on both a monthly and daily basis.
The Framework would state that MRGC would review the Model performance monitoring, which includes review of risk-based Models used to calculate margin requirements and relevant parameters/threshold indicators, sensitivity analysis, and Model backtesting results.
The Framework would further state that, in circumstances where the products cleared or the markets served by one or both of the CCPs display high volatility or become less liquid, or when the size or concentration of positions held by the applicable CCP's members increases or decreases significantly, such sensitivity analysis and review of key Model parameters and assumptions would be conducted more frequently than monthly.
The Framework would provide that VaR and Clearing Fund requirement (“CFR”) coverage backtesting for the CCPs would be performed by MVC on a daily basis or more frequently.
The Framework would provide that the CFR coverage thresholds for FICC and NSCC would be based on applicable regulatory requirements that require them, as CCPs, to cover their credit exposure to their participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, among other things calculates margin sufficient to cover their potential future exposure to participants in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default.
The Framework would provide that, on at least a monthly basis, the key metrics relating to Model backtesting would be reviewed by the Market and Liquidity Risk Management unit within the Group Chief Risk Office and MVC, and reported to the MRC.
The Framework would state that the Managing Director of the Market and Liquidity Risk Management unit within the Group Chief Risk Office would be responsible for reviewing the Market Risk Tolerance Statement at least annually.
The Framework would provide that all Model performance concerns would be escalated by MVC to the MRGC, including Model performance enhancement concerns.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody and control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.
The Commission believes that by establishing and describing in the proposed Framework (i) governance of the Framework; (ii) key terms; (iii) Model Inventory procedures; (iv) Model Validation procedures; (v) Model approval process; and (vi) Model performance procedures, as described above, the proposal is designed to help safeguard securities and funds in the Clearing Agencies' custody and control. Specifically, the comprehensive nature of the practices described in the Framework, both individually and collectively, are designed to help improve the Clearing Agencies' ability to determine and evaluate the risk presented by many of the Clearing Agencies' members by measuring, monitoring, and managing the risks from using quantitative Models. Clearly documenting the Clearing Agencies' ability to evaluate risk in the proposed Framework could enable the Clearing Agencies to deploy more effectively their risk management tools to manage the credit, market, and liquidity risks presented by such members. By enabling the Clearing Agencies to use their risk management tools more effectively, the proposed Framework is designed to help mitigate the risk that the Clearing Agencies would suffer a loss from a member default. Therefore, the Commission believes that these Proposed Rule Changes are designed to help safeguard funds within the Clearing Agencies' custody and control, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii) under the Act, which
As discussed above, the Framework would provide for validation of quantitative credit-risk Models. The Framework would describe the procedures for conducting a Model Inventory to determine which Models should be reviewed. The Framework would then describe the process for reviewing such Models, before they are implemented, so that the Clearing Agencies can ensure that their credit exposures are effectively and efficiently modeled. The Framework would further describe the validation process for the review of existing quantitative credit-risk Models to determine whether the Models accurately capture the Clearing Agencies' credit exposures, which would be performed not less than annually. Because the proposal is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii) by establishing the proposed Framework for performing a Model Validation for the Clearing Agencies' credit risk Models, the Commission believes the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii) under the Act.
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6) under the Act, specifically paragraphs (vi) and (vii) thereunder, as discussed below.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi) under the Act requires, in part, that the Clearing Agencies that provide CCP services (
As discussed above, the Framework would provide that FICC and NSCC, as CCPs, would (a) perform VaR and CFR backtesting on a daily basis using standard predetermined parameters and assumptions; (b) as part of Model performance monitoring, on at least a monthly basis, perform sensitivity analysis on each of the margin Models of FICC and NSCC, review the key parameters and assumptions for backtesting, and consider modifications to ensure the backtesting practices of FICC and NSCC are appropriate for determining the adequacy of the applicable CCP's margin resources; (c) in circumstances where the products cleared or the markets served by FICC, NSCC, or both display high volatility or become less liquid, or when the size or concentration of positions held by the applicable CCP's members increases or decreases significantly, conduct sensitivity analysis and review of key Model parameters and assumptions more frequently than monthly; and (d) report the results of their analyses under (b) and (c) to key decision makers, including but not limited to, the MRC, the BRC, or both, which could use these results to evaluate the adequacy of and adjust their margin methodology, Model parameters, and any other relevant aspects of their credit risk management framework. By establishing the proposed Framework for a risk-based margin system to help cover the credit exposures of FICC and NSCC, as CCPs, that, at minimum, is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is designed to address each of the enumerated requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi), the Commission believes the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii) under the Act requires, in part, that the Clearing Agencies that provide CCP services (
As discussed above, the Framework would describe FICC and NSCC's processes for determining which Models they should validate, including margin risk Models. After determining which Models to validate, FICC and NSCC would use the Model Validation processes for their margin systems and related Models, which would be performed not less than annually. In certain cases, FICC and NSCC may determine extra Model Validation activities are warranted based on previous Model Validation work and findings, changes in market conditions, or because a particular Model warrants extra validation. Because the proposal is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii) by establishing the proposed Framework for a risk-based margin system to help cover the credit exposures of FICC and NSCC, as CCPs, that, at minimum, requires a Model Validation for the their margin systems and related Models to be performed not less than annually, the Commission believes the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii).
The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vii) under the Act, which requires, in part, that the Clearing Agencies establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the Clearing Agencies,
As discussed above, the Framework would describe the Clearing Agencies' process for determining which Models they should validate, including liquidity risk Models. After determining which Models to validate, the Clearing Agencies would use the Model Validation processes for their margin systems and related Models, which would be performed not less than annually. In certain cases, the Clearing Agencies may determine extra Model Validation activities are warranted based on previous Model Validation work and findings, changes in market conditions, or because a particular Model warrants extra validation. Because the proposal is designed to meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vii) by establishing the proposed Framework to help measure, monitor, and manage the Clearing Agencies' settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and the Clearing Agencies' use of intraday liquidity by performing a Model Validation of their liquidity risk Models not less than annually, the Commission believes the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vii) under the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
LCH SA is proposing to amend its (i) CDS Clearing Rule Book (the “Rule Book”), (ii) CDS Clearing Supplement (the “Clearing Supplement”), (iii) CDS Clearing Procedures (the “Procedures”), and (iv) CDS Dispute Resolution Protocol (the “Dispute Resolution Protocol”), to incorporate terms and to make conforming and clarifying changes to allow options on index credit default swaps (“CDS”) to be cleared by LCH SA.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise LCH SA's rules and procedures to allow LCH SA to clear options on index CDS. An option on index CDS is a contract that gives the option buyer the right (and not the obligation) to enter into a specified index CDS contract (
The terms of the option contract on index CDS will provide the buyer the right to sell or buy protection on the underlying index CDS at expiry of the option. The index CDS resulting from the exercise of the option will be automatically cleared by LCH SA as the central counterparty. A credit event (including a restructuring event) may occur with respect to a constituent of an underlying index. If the credit event occurs before the option expiry, such credit event may affect the option buyer's decision regarding whether to exercise the option upon expiry. On the other hand, if a credit event occurs after the buyer has exercised the option, a cleared index CDS contract has been created from the option exercise and the situation would be the same as a credit event occurring to any other index CDS contract currently cleared by LCH SA.
Initially, LCH SA proposes to include European index CDS currently cleared by CDSClear as the underlying,
Each of the changes is described in further detail below.
The Rule Book would be amended to add several new defined terms in order to accommodate the addition of options on index CDS to LCH SA's CDSClear services. Specifically, LCH SA proposes to add a definition for “Index Swaptions” as transactions which give the buyer the right to enter into a CDS referencing a portfolio of Reference Entities specified in a CDS index with a seller. The defined term “Index Swaption Buyer” would be added in the Rule Book to mean a Clearing Member that is party to an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction as buyer, and the term “Index Swaption Seller” would be added in the Rule Book to mean a Clearing Member that is party to an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction as seller. The defined term “Index Swaption Cleared Transaction” would be added in the Rule Book, and defined by reference to the Supplement (described below), to mean a Cleared Transaction which gives Swaption Buyer the right to enter into a specified Underlying Index Transaction with Swaption Seller. The term “Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation” would also be added to the Rule Book, and defined by reference to the Clearing Supplement, to mean for any Index Swaption Cleared Transaction in respect of which the Underlying Index Transaction references a Series and versions of the Markit iTraxx Europe Index, the form of confirmation which incorporates the iTraxx Swaption Standard Terms Supplement, as completed by reference to the relevant transaction, or such other form confirmation as may be adopted from time to time in accordance with the terms of the Rule Book. For the avoidance of doubt, the extension of the CDS Clearing Service to the clearing of swaptions referencing indices other than the Markit iTraxx Europe Index would require additional amendments to the CDS Clearing Supplement. Amendments to the to the Rule Book, the Procedures, and other risk methodology documentation could also be required to reflect risk changes applicable to the clearing of such new products. The defined term “Index Swaption Clearing Service” would be added to refer to the CDS Clearing Service to which a Clearing Member would elect to be registered under in order to be permitted to submit Index Swaptions for clearing by LCH SA. The term “Premium” would also be added to the Rule Book and defined by reference to the 2006 International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) definitions, which are also incorporated into the Rule Book definitions, to describe the premium paid in respect of Index Swaptions and, relatedly, Article 1.2.9.2 would be modified to specify that the payment of “Premium” to the relevant Index Swaption Seller is within the scope of obligations that LCH SA undertakes to perform as central counterparty.
Definitions for “CDS Intraday Transaction,” which would mean a CDS which has been entered into between two ATSS Participants and submitted for clearing through an Approved Trade Source System, and “Index Swaption Intraday Transaction,” which would mean an Index Swaption which has been entered into between two ATSS Participants and submitted for clearing through an Approved Trade Source System, would be added to clarify the distinction for the novation process applicable to CDS Intraday Transactions and Index Swaption Intraday Transactions set forth in Article 3.1.6.1 (described below).
The term “Exercise Cleared Transaction” would be added to the Rule Book, and defined by reference to the Clearing Supplement, to mean each Index Swaption Cleared Transaction (including each Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction, as applicable) forming part of a matched pair as part of the creation of a Cleared Transaction in the context of the exercise process. A definition for “Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction” would be added to the Rule Book, and defined by reference to the Clearing Supplement, to mean a Cleared Transaction created as a result of a Restructuring Credit Event. The term “Exercise Notice” would also be added to the Rule Book, and defined by reference to the Clearing Supplement, as the notice of exercise (in whole or in part) given by the Swaption Buyer to the Swaption Seller in accordance with Section 13.2 (Procedure for Exercise) of the 2006 Definitions. The term “EMP Creation Period” would be added to the Rule Book, and defined by reference to the Clearing Supplement, to mean the period from (and including) the final Transaction Business Day of the calendar week immediately preceding the week in which the Expiration Date falls to (but excluding) the Transaction Business Day immediately preceding the Expiration Date.
The Rule Book would also include a reference for the definition of “Swaption Type,” which, as defined in the Clearing Supplement, would mean a class of Index Swaption Cleared Transactions that are identical as to their terms (including, without limitation, as to the terms of the Underlying Index Transaction to which such Index Swaption Cleared Transactions relates), except in respect of trade date, notional amount, Premium, and Premium Payment Date and identity of the relevant Swaption Buyer and Swaption Seller.
The definition of “LCH Settlement Price” would be added to the Rule Book to account for the end-of-day pricing procedures added for Index Swaptions, as described below.
The substance of certain existing defined terms in the Rule Book would also be modified to incorporate terms for Index Swaptions. The definitions of “CCM Cleared Transaction” (
The following defined terms in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1 would also include conforming changes for Index
In addition to the foregoing changes, various other conforming and clarifying changes would be made throughout Title I (General Provisions & Legal Framework) to incorporate terms to accommodate Index Swaptions. Those conforming and clarifying changes are set forth in Articles 1.0.1.1, 1.0.1.3, 1.1.2.1, 1.1.3.8, 1.1.3.9, 1.2.2.6, 1.2.2.11, 1.2.9.2, 1.2.12.2, and 1.2.14.2.
Separately, to provide additional clarification in respect of the cross-border aspects of its operations, LCH SA also proposes to include a definition for “U.S. CCM” to mean a CCM that is not a Non-U.S. CCM. A “Non-U.S. CCM,” in turn, would be defined as a CCM that engages in securities business activities solely outside the United States, its territories or possessions (except as otherwise permitted under SEC regulation without triggering a requirement to be registered as a “broker” or “dealer” under the Exchange Act) or, in the context of a Transaction that is not a security-based swap, a CCM that is organized under the laws of, or has its main center of business located in, a jurisdiction other than the United States, its territories or possessions. LCH SA also proposes to amend the definition of “U.S. CCM Client” to mean a CCM Client that is not a Non-U.S. CCM Client. A “Non-U.S. CCM Client” would mean a CCM Client that is organized under the laws of, or has its main center of business located in, a jurisdiction other than the United States, its territories or possessions.
Finally, certain other changes to the following terms would be made to correct existing inconsistencies or to make clarifications: “Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive,” “Delegation”, “Insolvency Proceeding” and “Settlement Finality Directive.”
Article 2.2.0.4 would be amended and Article 2.2.0.6 would be added to specify the procedures for an Applicant to register for the Index Swaption Clearing Service. Article 2.2.0.4 would be amended to reflect that the Product Family Form of a Select Member may be updated in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the CDS Default Management Process, as described below. Article 2.2.0.6 would also provide that an Applicant or existing Clearing Member may elect to register for, or terminate its registration from, the Index Swaption Clearing Service and, if applicable, that such registration will be deemed to occur in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the CDS Default Management Process. As a result of the addition of Index Swaptions, LCH SA also proposes to make conforming changes to Article 2.2.1.1 to reflect the addition of the Index Swaption Clearing Service.
Article 3.1.6.1 would be amended to add a new Article 3.1.6.1(iv) to describe the novation process in respect of Original Transactions that are Index Swaption Intraday Transactions. Specifically, Article 3.1.6.1(iv) would provide that each Original Transaction which is an Index Swaption Intraday Transaction will be replaced by two Cleared Transactions: (a) A Cleared Transaction entered into between LCH SA (acting as Index Swaption seller in respect of such Cleared Transaction) and either: (x) In the event the Index Swaption buyer of the Original Transaction is a Clearing Member, such Clearing Member (acting as Index Swaption Buyer in respect of such Cleared Transaction); or (y) in the event the Index Swaption buyer of the Original Transaction is a Client, the relevant Nominated Clearing Member (acting as Index Swaption Buyer in respect of such Cleared Transaction), as applicable; and (b) a Cleared Transaction entered into between LCH SA (acting as Index Swaption buyer in respect of such Cleared Transaction) and either: (x) In the event the Index Swaption seller of the Original Transaction is a Clearing Member, such Clearing Member (acting as Index Swaption Seller in respect of such Cleared Transaction); or (y) in the event the Index Swaption seller of the Original Transaction is a Client, the relevant Nominated Clearing Member (acting as Index Swaption Seller in respect of such Cleared Transaction), as applicable. Various other conforming and clarifying changes would also be made Article 3.1.6.1 to add references for Index Swaptions. Existing Article 3.1.6.1(iv) would be renumbered as 3.1.6.1(v).
Article 3.1.6.4 currently provides that LCH SA will be entitled to assume that certain events (such as delivery of a Credit Event Notice or Notice of Physical Settlement) have not occurred prior to novation because these events would terminate a constituent of the index underlying the CDS contract submitted for clearing; similarly, it would be amended to clarify that such events include Notices to Exercise Movement Option and Exercise Notices with respect to Index Swaptions because delivery of such notices would signify expiry of the option contract submitted for clearing.
Article 3.2.2.3 would clarify that LCH SA would calculate a Clearing Member's Open Positions by netting Cleared Transactions of the same type, including the same Swaption Type, as applicable. Article 3.3.1.3 would be amended to clarify that following a Restructuring Credit Event, LCH SA may compress Index Swaption Cleared Transactions to result in one or more Cleared Transaction(s)
Finally, LCH SA also would make conforming changes and corrections to Articles 3.1.6.8 and 3.1.10.7.
Section 4.2.7, which sets forth the procedures for calculating and using end of day pricing, would be amended to incorporate procedures for calculating end of day pricing for Index Swaptions. Article 4.2.7.1 would preserve the existing “Markit LCH Settlement Price” as the price/spread used to calculate the settlement prices for Index Cleared Transactions and Single Name Cleared Transactions on either an end of day or intra-day basis and add that LCH SA will use the “LCH Settlement Price” for purposes of calculating any risk calculation, valuing a Clearing Member's Open Positions and calculating a Clearing Member's Margin Requirements in respect of Index Swaptions. Article 4.2.7.2 would be amended to authorize each Clearing Member to use the “LCH Settlement Price” in respect of Index Swaptions in the same manner that Clearing Members are authorized to use the Markit LCH Settlement Price. Articles 4.2.7.3, which includes a disclaimer of warranties and liabilities as to End of Day Contributed Prices, and Article 4.2.7.5, which provides that End of Day Contributed Prices are accepted “as is,” would each be amended to make clear that the
Articles 4.2.7.7 and 4.2.7.8 would also be amended to incorporate references for Index Swaptions and Article 4.2.7.5 would include a minor clarifying change for readability.
Article 5.1.1.3, which constitutes the Mandatory Client Clearing Provisions, would be amended to incorporate references to Index Swaption Seller and Index Swaption Buyer along with references to CDS Buyer and CDS Seller. Other clarifications and corrections would also be made in Article 5.1.1.3, Article 5.1.2.2, and Article 6.1.1.3.
Article 6.4.1.1 would include one conforming change to clarify that Index Swaptions may be transferred in the same manner as CDS if, at any time, a liquidation date exists.
Appendix 1 of the Rule Book sets forth the process in accordance with which LCH SA and its Default Management Group will manage the default of a Clearing Member (the “CDS Default Management Process”). The CDS Default Management Process would be amended in various places to incorporate terms for Index Swaptions. Clause 5.4.1 of the CDS Default Management Process, which provides for the scope of the requirement to participate in the competitive auction process for a Defaulting Clearing Member's transactions, would be amended to provide that an Auction Participant that is not registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service is not required to participate in Competitive Bidding for an Auction Package containing any Index Swaption Cleared Transactions. Clause 6.1.2 of the CDS Default Management Process would be amended to establish the procedures for registering winning bids that are Index Swaptions so that if a Clearing Member is not currently registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service, the Clearing Member will become automatically registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service and its Product Family forms will be updated in accordance with Article 3.1.6.8 of the Rule Book. Clause 11.2.2 of the CDS Default Management Process would be amended to provide that of the five different members appointed as the CDS Default Management Group, at least two Clearing Members shall be registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service.
Additional conforming and clarifying changes would also be made in the CDS Default Management Process Three defined terms, “Invoice Back,” “Product Cash Payments” and “Transaction Categories,” would be amended to incorporate terms for Index Swaptions. Clause 5.6.3 of the CDS Default Management Process would be amended to clarify the calculation for adjusting the Initial Allocation Price and the allocation of the Auction Package in the event where the aggregate of each Non Bidder's Auction Non Bidder Bid Size is equal to or greater than 100. Clause 8.3 of the CDS Default Management Process would also be amended to incorporate terms for Index Swaptions.
A new Part C would be added to the Clearing Supplement, to provide the terms of Index Swaption Cleared Transactions. The Index Swaption contracts would be based on the form of confirmation incorporating the iTraxx Swaption Standard Terms Supplement and reference the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions and the 2006 Definitions, with certain modifications. The Clearing Supplement is the document which sets forth the economic terms of the transactions cleared by LCH SA and the new Part C, in particular, would detail the economic terms that are particular to Index Swaption Cleared Transactions.
Section 1 of Part C sets forth general provisions of Index Swaption Cleared Transactions, including incorporation of defined terms by reference, definitions of capitalized terms, resolution of inconsistencies or conflicts between the documents governing Index Swaptions, timing references, third party rights, recording, and application of the CDS Clearing Supplement to FCM Clearing Members with respect to client transactions.
Section 2 of Part C would provide for the creation of Index Swaption Cleared Transactions, Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions, and Exercise Cleared Transactions. As described above, an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction is a Cleared Transaction, the terms of which are as evidenced by an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation, which gives Swaption Buyer the right to enter into a specified Underlying Index Transaction with Swaption Seller. A Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction, in turn, is an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction forming part of an Swaption Restructuring Matched Pair, meaning a set of transactions created by LCH SA as a result of an ISDA Determinations Committee announcement of the occurrence of an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event (as defined in the ISDA Credit Definitions) for a Reference Entity referenced by such Underlying Index Transaction. An Exercise Cleared Transaction is an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction (including each Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction, as applicable) forming part of an Exercise Matched Pair, meaning a set of transactions created by LCH SA as a result of LCH SA's matching process, as described below. Upon the novation of an Original Transaction which is an Index Swaption or the creation of a Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction or an Exercise Cleared Transaction, Section 2 of Part C provides that each resulting Index Swaption Cleared Transaction and each such Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction and Exercise Cleared Transaction is then entered into by LCH SA and the relevant Clearing Member on the terms of the related Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation.
As noted above, an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction would be evidenced by an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation, which, for an Underlying Index Transaction that references a Series of the Markit iTraxx® Europe Index, would be in the form of confirmation which incorporates the iTraxx® Swaption Standard Terms Supplement. Section 2 of Part C would make certain modifications to such form of confirmation to specify, for example, that the Index Swaption Cleared Transaction is between LCH SA and the Clearing Member, that the confirmation supplements and forms part of, and is subject to, the CDS Clearing Documentation, that LCH SA is the calculation agent for purposes of the transaction, and that LCH SA will be the central counterparty for each Index Swaption Cleared Transaction. The Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation would also provide additional terms regarding termination of the Swaption Transaction on the Expiration Date.
Section 2 of Part C also specifies procedures for compression exercises for Index Swaption Cleared Transactions. In addition, certain amendments to the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions would be made
Section 3 of Part C would set forth the payment obligations of each of LCH SA and each Clearing Member as well as the requirement to pay Premiums in respect of Index Swaption Cleared Transactions. Section 3.1 of Part C would provide that each of LCH SA and each Clearing Member will make each payment specified under the terms of each Cleared Transaction to be made by it, subject to the other provisions of the CDS Clearing Documentation and that payments under any Cleared Transaction will be made on the due date for value on that date in the place of the account specified for the relevant party in the CDS Admission Agreement (or such other account as may be designated by it from time to time). Section 3.2 of Part C would provide that if the Premium is due and payable under the terms of an Original Transaction on or before the Clearing Day on which the related Index Swaption Cleared Transactions are created by novation, such amount would be payable under and in accordance with the terms of such Original Transaction. If the Premium Payment Date of an Original Transaction would be a date falling after the Clearing Day on which the Index Swaption Cleared Transactions related to such Original Transaction are created by novation, then the corresponding Premium Payment Date for the related Index Swaption Cleared Transactions shall occur on the Transaction Business Day which is also a Clearing Day immediately following the Clearing Day on which such related Index Swaption Cleared Transactions are created and the Index Swaption Cleared Transaction Confirmation shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly.
Section 4 of Part C would outline the requirements and procedures in the event of a Credit Event, Succession Event or M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event. With respect to Credit Events and Succession Events, Section 4.1 of Part C would provide that LCH SA (in its capacity as Calculation Agent with respect to such Cleared Transaction) will not make any determinations pursuant to the 2014 ISDA Credit Definitions on substituting reference obligations or which may be subject to successor resolutions of the ISDA Determinations Committee Rules and that neither LCH SA nor any Clearing Member shall be entitled to deliver a Successor Notice or a Credit Event Notice (other than Credit Event Notices in relation to an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event, as described below). With respect to an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event, Section 4.2 of Part C would provide that upon an ISDA Determinations Committee Credit Event Announcement of an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event, LCH SA will publish and make available to Clearing Members a timeline in respect of the relevant Credit Event and related Cleared Transactions for which the Underlying Index Transaction references the affected Reference Entity, to notify, among other things, the relevant Novation Cut-off Date, Compression Cut-off Date and First Novation Date. Any such timeline may be subject to subsequent amendment by LCH SA, however, by means of a Clearing Notice to Clearing Members, to reflect subsequent ISDA Determinations Committee resolutions, timing provisions of any relevant Transaction Auction Settlement Terms, or in each case any subsequent amendments thereto. To the extent that an ISDA Determinations Committee Announcement is reversed, Section 4.3 of Part C would require LCH SA to calculate and LCH SA would be entitled to call for margin and/or be obliged to return margin with respect to each Clearing Member.
Section 5 of Part C, entitled Restructuring, would set forth the requirements and procedures for the creation of Swaption Restructuring Matched Pairs, the triggering and partial triggering of Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions, and the notification requirements in respect of Swaption Restructuring Matched Pairs. Specifically, Section 5.1 of Part C would provide that following the occurrence of an ISDA Determinations Committee Announcement in respect of an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event in respect of a Reference Entity referenced by the Underlying Index Transaction to which a set of Index Swaption Cleared Transactions of the same Swaption Type relates, LCH SA will create (on one or more occasions) Swaption Restructuring Matched Pairs and each such Swaption Restructuring Matched Pair shall be composed of two Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions.
Under Section 5.2 of Part C, where two or more Index Swaption Cleared Transactions have been combined into a single transaction as part of the matching process and/or where any Index Swaption Cleared Transaction has been split into two or more separate transactions as part of the matching process, the relevant original Index Swaption Cleared Transactions entered into by each Clearing Member with LCH SA will be deemed terminated and new Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions of the same Swaption Type will be deemed to be entered into between each such Clearing Member and LCH SA, with each such Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction having a Swaption Notional Amount (and with the Underlying Index Transaction in respect of each such Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction having an Original Notional Amount) corresponding to the Swaption Restructuring Matched Pair Amount of the Swaption Restructuring Matched Pair in which the relevant Clearing Member is comprised as a Matched Buyer or a Matched Seller, as applicable.
Section 5.3 of Part C would provide when a Clearing Member may deliver Credit Event Notices (as CDS Buyer or CDS Seller) in relation to an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event. Section 5.4 of Part C would address a partial triggering of a Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction. Section 5.5 of Part C would specify the requirements for delivering a Notice to Exercise Movement Option. Section 5.6 would set forth the effect of Credit Event Notices and Notices of Exercise Movement Options, providing that a Matched Buyer and Matched Seller shall have no payment or delivery obligations in respect of the M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event as a result of the delivery of a Credit Event Notice or Notice to Exercise Movement Option. Such payment and delivery obligations shall instead arise under the Restructuring Cleared Transactions created following exercise (if applicable). Section 5.7 of Part C would outline the procedures upon the reversal of an ISDA Determinations Committee M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event announcement. Section 5.8 of Part C would set forth the reports that LCH SA would deliver to relevant Clearing Members as a result of an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event. Finally, Section 5.9 of Part C would set forth the procedures applicable upon the expiry of the CEN Triggering Period (
Section 6 of Part C would address the exercise of Matched Pairs, including the creation and notification of Exercise Matched Pairs, the creation of Exercise Cleared Transactions, the delivery of Exercise and Abandonment Notices, and Cleared Transaction Exercise Reports.
On each Transaction Business Day during the EMP Creation Period (
Section 6.2 of Part C provides that upon the notification to the relevant Clearing Members of Exercise Matched Pairs, where two or more Index Swaption Cleared Transactions have been combined into a single transaction as part of the matching process and/or where any Index Swaption Cleared Transaction has been split into two or more separate transactions as part of the matching process, the relevant original Index Swaption Cleared Transactions entered into by each Clearing Member with LCH SA will be deemed terminated and new Exercise Cleared Transactions of the same Swaption Type will be deemed to be entered into between each such Clearing Member and LCH SA.
Section 6.3 of Part C would provide that Exercise Notices will be delivered by Swaption Buyers to Swaption Sellers and that any Exercise Notice delivered in respect of an Exercise Matched Pair for an amount which is greater than the related Exercise Matched Pair Notional Amount shall be ineffective as to such excess.
Section 6.4 of Part C would provide that if on the Expiration Date Swaption Buyer delivers a valid Abandonment Notice to Swaption Seller, then upon delivery of such notice each Exercise Cleared Transaction specified in such Abandonment Notice shall be terminated in whole and no further amounts shall become due and payable by Swaption Buyer to Swaption Seller or vice versa in respect of such Exercise Transaction.
Finally, Section 6.5 of Part C would provide that LCH SA will communicate to the relevant Clearing Members, on the basis of information received from Clearing Members the aggregate Swaption Notional Amounts of Exercise Cleared Transactions to which they are a party as Swaption Buyer in respect of which Exercise Notices and Abandonment Notices have been delivered and the aggregate Swaption Notional Amounts of Exercise Cleared Transactions to which they are a party as Swaption Seller in respect of which Exercise Notices and Abandonment Notices have been delivered, in each case on an ongoing basis on the Expiration Date.
Section 7 of Part C would address settlement, providing that following Exercise, an Index Cleared Transaction shall be deemed to have been entered into between each Clearing Member and LCH SA on the terms of the Underlying Index Transaction to which the relevant Exercise Cleared Transactions relates and evidenced by an Index Cleared Transaction Confirmation. Following the creation of such Index Cleared Transaction and any Initial Single Name Cleared Transaction(s) and Restructuring Cleared Transaction(s), the Exercise Cleared Transaction from which it was created shall be terminated. Section 7 would also provide procedures for the creation of Single Name Cleared Transactions following a Credit Event as well as creation of Restructuring Cleared Transactions following an M(M)R Restructuring Credit Event.
Section 8 of Part C would provide for general rules relating to notices, including the methods of delivery of various notices and the timing of delivery for such notices.
Section 9 of Part C would outline the procedures for the creation of Matched Pairs, the registration of new Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions and Exercise Cleared Transactions, resetting of Swaption Trade Dates, the exercise of rights by Matched Buyers and Matched Sellers, and Matched Pairs with the same clearing member. Section 9.1 of Part C would provide that LCH SA will create Matched Pairs using a matching procedure that matches Swaption Sellers with Swaption Buyers pursuant to an algorithm. Section 9.2 of Part C would address the registration of Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions and Exercise Cleared Transactions and removal of original Index Swaption Cleared Transactions in accordance with DTCC Rules. Section 9.3 of Part C would provide the circumstances under which LCH SA may reset a Swaption Trade Date for Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transaction or Exercise Cleared Transaction. Section 9.4 of Part C would set forth the notice mechanics with respect to applicable notices, including with respect to Exercise Notices and Abandonment Notices. Section 9.5 of Part C would provide that, in relation to each Matched Pair, (x) the exercise of any rights by Matched Buyer against LCH SA under a Matched Buyer Contract shall be deemed to constitute the exercise of equal and simultaneous rights by LCH SA against Matched Seller under the Matched Seller Contract of the relevant Matched Pair, and (y) the exercise of any rights by Matched Seller against LCH SA under a Matched Seller Contract shall be deemed to constitute the exercise of equal and simultaneous rights by LCH SA against Matched Buyer under the Matched Buyer Contract of the relevant Matched Pair. To the extent that Matched Buyer and Matched Seller of a Matched Pair is the same Clearing Member, Section 9.6 would provide that such Clearing Member shall be deemed to have sent a notice from itself in its role as Matched Buyer to itself in its role as Matched Seller (and vice versa) upon such Clearing Member sending a Clearing Member Notice to LCH SA. Section 9.7 of Part C would then set forth the notice mechanics with respect to Matched Pair Buyer and Matched Pair Sellers.
Sections 10 through 15 of Part C would contain miscellaneous provisions, including ones that relate to the mandatory provisions to be incorporated into CCM Client
Various changes to the Procedures would be made for Index Swaptions.
Section 1.1 of the Procedures sets forth the indicative timeline for LCH SA's processing of membership applications. Section 1.1 of the Procedures would be amended to clarify that an Applicant would be required to identify operational personnel with knowledge of Index Swaptions and that whether a Clearing Member's registration for the Index Swaption Clearing Service is approved will be specified in the LCH SA approval letter. Section 1.2 would be amended to state that if a Clearing Member wishes to register, or to be no longer registered, for the Index Swaption Clearing Service that Clearing Member must inform LCH SA and that LCH SA will notify the Clearing Member of its decision to register or terminate registration of the Clearing Member in respect of the Index Swaption Clearing Service. Section 1.2 of the Procedures would further provide that if a Clearing Member wishes to no longer be registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service, LCH SA will not approve such a request as long as there is any Index Swaption Cleared Transaction registered in that Clearing Member's Account Structure.
Section 2.7 of the Procedures, which describes the Initial Margin collected by LCH SA, would be modified to include a reference to Index Swaptions and to clarify that Initial Margin covers potential costs caused by a Defaulting Clearing Member and/or a “double Event of Default,” in respect of which the Clearing Member is a protection seller in respect of the Underlying Index Transaction of an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction. Sections 2.7(a)-(b) also include amendments for clarification purposes; Section 2.7(a) would note that Spread Margin would be calculated using spread and volatility variations; Section 2.7(b) would delete language for readability. Section 2.7(c) of the Procedures would be amended to refer to Index Swaption Cleared Transactions and to make clear the Short Charge Margin would be imposed where a Clearing Member is acting as a protection seller in respect of the Underlying Index Transaction of an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction. Section 2.8 of the Procedures would be amended to specify that Self-Referencing Protection Margin would be imposed where a Clearing Member is acting as a protection seller in respect of the Underlying Index Transaction of an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction, for which such Clearing Member is, or becomes, the Reference Entity. In Section 2.10 of the Procedures, changes would be made to specify that each Clearing Member acting as a protection buyer in respect of an Underlying Index Transaction of an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction where the exercise of that Index Swaption Cleared Transaction falls in the margin calculation time horizon would be required to pay Accrued Fixed Amount Liquidation Risk Margin, to cover the risk that it is subject to an Event of Default and accrued Fixed Amounts are due during the period that the relevant House Cleared Transactions or Non-Ported Cleared Transactions, as applicable, are liquidated pursuant to the CDS Default Management Process. Section 2.11 of the Procedures, which relates to Credit Event Margin, would also be amended to specify that where a Credit Event occurs with respect to the Reference Entity which is the subject of the Cleared Transaction, each Clearing Member is required to pay Credit Event Margin to cover the risk of a potential adverse change in the estimated recovery rate, in the event of non-payment of Variation Margin by the Index Swaption Seller or Index Swaption Buyer in respect of an Index Swaption Cleared Transaction. Section 2.13 of the Procedures would also be amended to clarify that Variation Margin covers the variation of the market value of an Index Swaption.
Section 3.18 of the Procedures would be amended to state that a Clearing Member is required to pay Premiums to satisfy its Cash Payment obligation in respect of Index Swaptions.
Section 4.1 of the Procedures, which provides that LCH SA provides CDS Clearing Services only in relation to Original Transactions which comply with the requirements of Section 4.1(c) of the Procedures, would be modified to provide that in respect of an Original Transaction that is an Index Swaption Intraday Transaction, the Clearing Member must be registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service. Section 4.1 (c)(iii)(C) would also be added to identify the eligibility requirements for Index Swaption Intraday Transactions.
A new Section 4.4 of the Procedures would be added to detail the procedures and factors for LCH SA to identify those contracts which will be considered Eligible Index Swaptions. Section 4.4 of the Procedures would require that LCH SA, in consultation with the CDSClear Product Committee, consider (i) each Expiration Date that is eligible for clearing; (ii) each Index Version of the Underlying Index Transaction which is eligible for clearing, as well as each term which is eligible for clearing and the currency of the Original Notional Amount which is eligible for clearing. Section 4.4(c) of the Procedures would also require that eligible Index Swaptions be published on LCH SA's Web site and Section 4.4(d) of the Procedures would permit LCH SA, in consultation with the CDSClear Product Committee, to amend the Eligible Index Swaptions List. Section 4.4(e)(ii) of the Procedures would identify the circumstances in which a Clearing Member may submit for clearing an Index Swaption that does not satisfy the relevant criteria in Section 4.1(c)(vi) of the Procedures if such transaction is a risk reducing transaction (as determined by LCH SA) in respect of a relevant Margin Account and it is not unlawful or illegal for LCH SA to accept such transaction for clearing.
Section 5 of the Procedures, which addresses CDS clearing operations, would include various amendments to facilitate clearing of Index Swaptions. Section 5.5 of the Procedures would be modified to include a description of the trade compression process for Index Swaption Cleared Transactions. Section 5.8 of the Procedures sets forth the process and procedures to ensure that all Cleared Transactions are stored and replicated on LCH SA's systems. Additional events required to be recorded and stored would be added to the list of items in Section 5.8 of the Procedures, including the creation of Swaption Restructuring Cleared Transactions and Exercise Cleared Transactions as well as the exercise of Exercise Cleared Transactions. Section 5.16 of the Procedures would be amended to require that LCH SA publish a Cleared Transaction Exercise Report. Section 5.18.2 (b) of the
Section 3.10 of the Dispute Resolution Protocol, which establishes the procedures applicable to arbitration proceedings involving LCH SA, would be amended to specify that these procedures also apply if the parties to the arbitration include an Index Swaption Seller or Index Swaption Buyer and if the dispute arises out of or in connection with the Cleared Transactions which are the subject of a Swaption Restructuring Matched Pair or Exercise Matched Pair.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change and the clearing of Index Swaptions is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
In addition, the proposed amendments also satisfy the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1), (13), and (18).
Further, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) requires a covered clearing agency to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the covered clearing agency has the authority and operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations. LCH SA will apply its existing default management policies and procedures for Index Swaptions, including the procedures for participation in a competitive auction process for a Defaulting Clearing Member's transactions and the appointment of at least two Clearing Members registered for the Index Swaption Clearing Service to be part of the five-member CDS Default Management Group, to allow LCH SA to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity demands, in accordance with 17Ad-22(e)(13).
Finally, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) requires a covered clearing agency to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to establish objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for participation, which permit fair and open access by direct, and where relevant, indirect participants and other financial market utilities, require participants to have sufficient financial resources and robust operational capacity to meet obligations arising from participation in clearing agency. As noted above, the proposed rule change would extend existing participation requirements to persons proposing to enter into Index Swaptions and make clear that such persons must have operational competence in respect of Index Swaptions. Therefore, LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18).
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-006 and should be submitted on or before September 21, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statement may be examined at
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to increase the fees assessed under specified circumstances for execution of orders that take liquidity during periods when the IEX System has determined that a “crumbling quote” exists with respect to the Protected NBB or Protected NBO for such security.
Pursuant to IEX Rule 11.190(g), in determining whether quote instability or a crumbling quote exists, the Exchange utilizes real time relative quoting activity of certain Protected Quotations
When CQI is on, Discretionary Peg orders
By not permitting resting Discretionary Peg orders and primary peg orders to exercise price discretion during periods of quote instability, the Exchange is designed to protect such orders from unfavorable executions when its probabilistic model identifies that the market appears to be moving adversely to them. As noted above, when the IEX System determines that a quote (either the Protected NBB or the Protected NBO) is unstable, the determination, and corresponding limitation on Discretionary Peg and primary peg orders exercising price discretion, remains in effect at that price level for only two milliseconds. This limitation is designed to appropriately balance the protective benefits to Discretionary Peg and primary peg orders with the interest of avoiding potentially undue trading restrictions.
Based on market data analysis during June 2017, the Exchange identified that there are significant differences in short term markouts
Moreover, the breakdown of orders entered and shares removed when the CQI is on or off evidences that certain trading strategies appear to involve entering liquidity taking orders targeting resting orders at prices that are likely to move adversely from the perspective of the resting order. Across all approximately 8,000 symbols available for trading on IEX, the CQI is on only 1.24 seconds per symbol per day on average (0.005% of the time during regular market hours),
The Exchange believes that this data is particularly significant and evidences that Members entering liquidity taking orders when the CQI is on appear to be able to engage in a form of latency arbitrage by leveraging fast proprietary market data feeds and connectivity along with predictive strategies to chase short-term price momentum and successfully target resting orders at unstable prices. IEX believes that these types of trading strategies, with concentrated and aggressive tactics during moments of quote instability, are detrimental to the experience of other IEX participants. IEX further believes
Accordingly, to incentivize additional resting liquidity, including displayed liquidity, on IEX, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees applicable to orders that remove resting liquidity when the CQI is on if such orders constitute at least 5% of the Member's volume executed on IEX and at least 1,000,000 shares, on a monthly basis, measured on a per market participant identifier (“MPID”) basis. As proposed, such orders that exceed the 5% and 1,000,000 share thresholds would be assessed a fee of $0.0030 per each incremental share executed (or 0.3% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00) that exceeds the threshold. For example, assume Member XYZ executed 100,000,000 shares through its MPID 1234 during a particular month, and 6,000,000 of such shares removed liquidity while the CQI was on. The 6,000,000 shares executed when the CQI was on exceed the threshold since such shares are more than 5% of MPID 1234's monthly volume (
Setting the fee threshold at 5% and 1,000,000 shares is a narrowly tailored approach, designed to only charge the increased fee in circumstances where the Member executes a meaningful portion of its volume via liquidity removing orders when the CQI is on, and not charge the fee for executions of this type that are more likely to be incidental to broader trading activity by the Member and not part of a specific trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during periods of quote instability. The Exchange proposes to refer to this pricing as the “Crumbling Quote Remove Fee” on the Fee Schedule with a Fee Code Indicator of “Q” to be provided by the Exchange on execution reports to Members removing liquidity when the CQI is on.
As proposed, to provide transparency about potential fees, the Exchange will begin providing Fee Code Indicator Q on execution reports at least one month prior to implementation of the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee so that Members can assess the impact of the new fee and make any corresponding adjustments to their trading strategies. IEX will announce the availability of new Fee Code Indicator Q approximately 30 days after effectiveness of this rule filing. IEX will provide at least ten business days' notice of implementation of the proposed fee within 90 days of effectiveness of this rule filing.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed new Crumbling Quote Remove Fee is designed to enhance the Exchange's market quality by encouraging Members and other market participants to add more liquidity to the Exchange order book, which benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool. Specifically, the Exchange believes that trading strategies that target resting liquidity during periods of quote instability seek to trade at prices that are about to become stale, and thus discourage other market participants from entering liquidity providing orders on the Exchange. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable because it would create an added incentive for Members and other market participants to provide liquidity on IEX since the increased fee may result in fewer orders seeking to remove liquidity when the CQI is on, and concomitant overall better execution quality.
Other exchanges offer incentives in the form of rebates and/or reduced fees that are designed to encourage market participants to send increased levels of order flow to such exchanges. These typically take the form of lower fees and higher rebates for meeting specified volume tiers.
Similarly, the proposal seeks to promote increased liquidity and price discovery on the Exchange by providing a fee designed to incentivize liquidity providing orders that can improve the quality of the market. The Exchange believes that, to the extent the fee is successful in reducing targeted and aggressive liquidity removing orders, it would contribute to investors' confidence in the fairness of transactions and the market generally, thereby benefiting multiple classes of market participants and supporting the public interest and investor protection purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that maker-taker and taker-maker pricing schemes in general create needless complexity in market structure in various ways and result in conflicts of interest between brokers and their customers. Accordingly, IEX has made a decision not to adopt rebate provisions in favor of a more transparent pricing structure that generally charges equal fees (or in some cases, no fee) for a particular trade to both the “maker” and “taker” of liquidity. Given this decision, IEX must use other means to incentivize orders to rest on its order book. IEX's execution quality is one important incentive, but this incentive can be undercut by trading strategies that target resting orders during periods of quote instability. Accordingly, IEX believes that the proposed Crumbling Quote Remove Fee is one reasonable way to compete with other exchanges for order flow, consistent with its alternative exchange model and without relying on rebates.
As discussed in the Purpose section, the increased fee would only be charged
The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate, and consistent with the Act, to not charge a fee to Members that do not exceed the 5% and 1,000,000 share thresholds during the month in question. This flexibility is designed to address limited inadvertent liquidity removal when the CQI is on for Members whose order flow during such times is incidental. In addition, the Exchange believes it is appropriate, and consistent with the Act, to not charge a fee to Members for the execution of buy (sell) orders that take liquidity at prices above (below) the Protected NBO (NBB) during the two milliseconds when the CQI is on because such executions are not indicative of a trading strategy that targets resting orders at soon to be stale prices during periods of quote instability.
Further, the Exchange believes that the data from June 2017 supports the position that the proposed threshold is narrowly tailored to only charge the fee based on objective criteria indicating that execution of the orders in question reasonably appear to be part of a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during periods of quote instability. Based on data from June 2017, the Exchange estimates that only 13 Members each using one unique MPID (out of 125 total Members trading through 158 MPIDS that traded on IEX during the month) would have been subject to the proposed fee, five of which would have paid less than $1,500 in such fees.
The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the Act and an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities to measure whether the threshold is reached on an MPID basis. As discussed above, the threshold is designed to narrowly focus on executions that appear to be part of a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during periods of quote instability. The Exchange believes that Members that utilize multiple MPIDs generally use different MPIDs for different trading strategies or customers. Therefore, the Exchange believes that measuring by MPID is a more precise manner of assessing whether a Member's trading strategy (or that of a customer) is part of a deliberate trading strategy that targets resting liquidity during periods of quote instability.
Accordingly, the Exchange submits that the proposed threshold is narrowly tailored to address particular trading strategies (rather than particular classes of Members) that may operate to disincentivize the entry of resting orders by other market participants. Specifically, and as discussed above, to the extent the proposed fee is successful in reducing such trading strategies on IEX, it may result in market quality improvements which could benefit multiple classes of market participants.
The Exchange further believes that charging the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee only to the liquidity remover is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to incentivize order flow that enhances the quality of trading on the Exchange and disincentivize trading that does not. As discussed above, IEX believes that there are precedents for exchanges to charge different fees based upon meeting (or not meeting) particular criteria, as well as maker-taker and taker-maker pricing structures whereby the liquidity adder and remover to a trade are subject to differing fees and rebates, to incentivize certain types of trading activity. Fees and rebates based on maker-taker and taker-maker pricing as well as on volume-based tiers have been widely adopted by equities exchanges. And in some cases, maker-taker or taker-maker pricing has been combined with volume-based tiers that result in differential fees and rebates for different exchange members. These fee structures have been permitted by the Commission. For example, Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) previously offered a rebate contingent upon adding specified amounts of liquidity to EDGA.
The Exchange also notes that there is precedent to charge a different fee (or pay a different rebate) based on the execution price of an order. The Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. pays a rebate of $0.0017 to a non-displayed order that adds liquidity, while if such an order receives price improvement it does not receive a rebate or pay a fee.
Thus, maker-taker, taker-maker, and volume tier based fee structures (separately or in combination) have been adopted by other exchanges on the basis that they may discriminate in favor of certain types of members but not in an unfairly discriminatory manner in violation of the Act. As with such fee structures, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is narrowly tailored to disincentive to all Members from deploying trading strategies designed to chase short-term price momentum during periods when the CQI is on and thus potentially adversely impact liquidity providing orders. IEX believes that, to the extent it is successful in this regard, the proposed fee structure may lead to increased liquidity providing orders on IEX which could benefit multiple classes of market participants through increased trading
Further, the Exchange notes that the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) charges excess order fees (ranging from $0.005 to $0.01 per excess weighted order) on certain members that have a relatively high ratio of orders entered away from the NBBO to orders executed in whole or in part, subject to a carve-outs for specified lower volume members and certain registered market makers.
Similarly, the proposed IEX fee is designed to incentivize the entry of liquidity providing orders that can enhance the quality of the market and disincentivize certain liquidity removing orders that can degrade the quality of the market. Participants can manage their fees by making adjustments to their order entry practices, to decrease their entry of orders designed to target resting liquidity during periods of quote instability. And, as with the Nasdaq excess order fees, ideally, the fee will be applied to no one, because participants will adjust their trading activity to account for the pricing change. Thus, the Exchange believes that the $0.0030 per share executed fee is reasonably related to the trading activity IEX is seeking to disincentivize.
IEX also believes that it is appropriate, reasonable and consistent with the Act, to charge a fee of $0.0030 per share executed (or 0.3% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00) that exceed the threshold described herein because it is within the transaction fee range charged by other exchanges
Additionally, the Exchange believes that its proposed new fee code indicator, to be provided on execution reports, will provide transparency and predictability to Members as to applicable transaction fees. In this regard, IEX notes that Members will be able to maintain a tally of executions of liquidity taking orders potentially subject to the CQI fee on a monthly basis, and calculate whether the proportion of such orders is more than 5% of their total monthly volume on IEX. Using IEX execution reports, Members can calculate whether the sum of liquidity removing shares executed with Fee Code Indicator Q is more than 1,000,000 shares, and whether the sum of shares executed with Fee Code Indicator Q divided by the sum of total volume executed on IEX is more than 5%. In addition, IEX will provide the new feed code indicator to Members for at least one month prior to implementation of the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee so that Members can assess the potential impact of the new fee on their IEX order entry practices, and make any adjustments that the Members determines are warranted. The Exchange does not believe that it would be useful to publicly disseminate when the CQI is on in a particular security through a proprietary market data feed in view of the fact that the CQI is only on for two milliseconds at a time, given the latencies inherent in dissemination and receipt of proprietary market data. IEX Rule 11.190(g) describes with specificity when the CQI is on. And, as discussed above, the data suggests that Members that would be potentially impacted by the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee are engaging in purposeful activity and are thus able to determine with reasonable certainty when the CQI is on.
Moreover, IEX believes that the fee will help to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, because the fee is designed to reduce the entry of liquidity removing orders that can degrade the quality of the market and incentivize liquidity providing orders that can improve the quality of the market, thereby promoting greater order interaction and inhibiting potentially abusive trading practices.
Finally, and as discussed in the Burden on Competition section, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which Members and market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing structure may increase competition and hopefully draw additional volume to the Exchange by enhancing the quality of executions across all participants when the CQI is on. As discussed in the Statutory Basis section, the proposed fee structure is a narrowly tailored approach, designed to enhance the Exchange's market quality by incentivizing trading activity that the Exchange believes enhances the quality of its market. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee would contribute to, rather than burden, competition, as the fee is intended to incentivize Members and market participants to send increased liquidity providing order flow to the Exchange, which may increase IEX's liquidity and market quality, thereby enhancing the Exchange's ability to compete with other exchanges. Further, the proposed fee is in line with fees charged by other exchanges.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited, and does not believe that such fees would burden competition of Members or competing venues in a manner that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of August 2017. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-7345 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 30, 2017, the Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to introduce a new Market Maker Peg Order that the Exchange states is designed to promote compliance by market makers with the continuous quoting and pricing obligations of IEX Rule 11.151 (Market Maker Obligations),
As proposed, the Market Maker Peg Order will be a one-sided limit order
Specifically, upon entry or at the beginning of the Regular Market Session,
Upon reaching the Defined Limit (as defined in IEX Rule 11.151(a)(7)), the price of a Market Maker Peg Order will be adjusted by the System to the Designated Percentage away from the then current NBB or NBO, or, if there is no NBB or NBO, the order will, by default, be the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible single plan processor. If a Market Maker Peg Order bid or offer moves a specified number of percentage points away from the Designated Percentage towards the then current NBB or NBO, its price will be adjusted by the System to the Designated Percentage away from the then current NBB or NBO, as applicable. If there is no NBB or NBO, as applicable, the order will be adjusted by the System to the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible single plan processor. In the event that pricing a Market Maker Peg Order at the Designated Percentage away from the then current NBB and NBO, or, if no NBB or NBO, to the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible single plan processor, would result in the order exceeding its limit price, the order will be cancelled or rejected.
If, after entry, the Market Maker Peg Order is priced based on the last reported sale from the single plan processor and such Market Maker Peg Order is established as the NBB or NBO, the Market Maker Peg Order will not be subsequently adjusted until either there is a new consolidated last sale or a new NBB or NBO is established.
For purposes of the proposed rule, the Exchange will apply the Designated Percentage and Defined Limit as set forth in IEX Rules 11.151(a)(6) and (7), respectively, subject to the following exception: For all NMS stocks with a price less than $1 per share that are not included in the S&P 500® Index, Russell 1000® Index, and a pilot list of Exchange Traded Products, the Exchange will use the Designated Percentage and Defined Limit applicable to NMS stocks equal to or greater than $1 per share that are not included in the S&P 500® Index, Russell 1000® Index, and a pilot list of Exchange Traded Products.
Market Maker Peg Orders will not be eligible for routing pursuant to IEX Rule 11.230(b) and are always displayed on the Exchange. Notwithstanding the availability of Market Maker Peg Order functionality, a market maker will remain responsible for entering, monitoring, and resubmitting, as applicable, quotations that meet the requirements of IEX Rule 11.151. A new timestamp will be created for the order each time that it is automatically adjusted in accordance with the proposed rule.
The Exchange states that the System will be available for entry, modification, and cancellation of Market Maker Peg Orders only via the POP
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.340 (Compliance with Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot) to specify that if, pursuant to proposed IEX Rule 11.190(b)(13), a Market Maker Peg Order in a Pilot Security
In its proposal, the Exchange noted its intention to implement the proposed
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act because it provides an optional tool that market makers may use as a backstop to help maintain a continuous quote in satisfaction of the Exchange's minimum continuous quoting requirements, which may assist in the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. The Commission notes, however, that notwithstanding the availability of the Market Maker Peg Order functionality, the market maker remains responsible for meeting its obligations under IEX Rule 11.151, including entering, monitoring, and re-submitting, as applicable, compliant quotations. At the same time, the Commission finds that the proposal is reasonably designed to assist market makers in complying with the regulatory requirements of the Market Access Rule and Regulation SHO. The Commission notes, however, the Market Maker Peg Order does not by itself ensure that the market maker is satisfying the requirements of the Market Access Rule or Regulation SHO, including the satisfaction of the locate requirements of Rule 203(b)(1) of the Act or any exception thereto.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to subject all inbound and outbound communications related to Market Maker Peg Orders, including the automatic repricing of such orders, to POP latency is consistent with the Act. In particular, this treatment of the Market Maker Peg Order places a market maker using this order type in the same position as another market maker placing and updating its own quote directly without using the Market Maker Peg Order type—both will be subject to the POP and experience the same latency. In addition, this approach is consistent with the treatment of other displayed orders on the Exchange, all of which are subject to the POP latency.
Further, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to specify how Market Maker Peg Orders will be priced in order to comply with the Tick Pilot Plan is consistent with the Act and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
Finally, the Commission notes that other national securities exchanges offer similar order types to the Exchange's proposed Market Maker Peg Order,
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 principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework and the ICC Stress Testing Framework. These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (“Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes revisions to its Stress Testing Framework and its Liquidity Risk Management Framework. Specifically, ICC proposes changes to enhance ICC's stress testing and liquidity stress testing practices following the clearing of Single Name (“SN”) credit default swaps (“CDS”) referencing ICC Clearing Participants
ICC proposes changes to its Stress Testing Framework following clearing of SN CDS referencing ICC CPs. ICC proposes amendments to the `Predefined Scenarios' section of the Stress Testing Framework to amend scenarios classified as Hypothetically Constructed (Forward Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios to incorporate additional losses related to the Expected Loss-Given-Default (“ELGD”) of all names not explicitly assumed to enter a state of default in a CP's portfolio, and not limited to those in the Banking or Sovereign sectors. The ELGD amount will accumulate the LGD of all of the SNs in the portfolio that do not explicitly enter a state of default, weighted by the market observed 1-year end-of-day Default Probability.
ICC proposes to incorporate an enhanced analysis into the `General Wrong Way Risk and Contagion Stress Tests' section of the Stress Testing Framework that estimates profits and losses (“P/L”) arising from general wrong way risk (“GWWR”) generated by index and SN RFs that exhibit high degree of association with CPs. All positions in the index and SN instruments are used to construct for each CP a hypothetical sub-portfolio subject to an additional stress test analysis. Under the proposed analysis, if the constructed sub-portfolio presents GWWR stemming from positions in SN Risk Factors (“RFs”) that belong to the Banking and Sovereign Sections, additional GWWR related stress losses, deemed to be `extreme but plausible, will be added. These additional GWWR losses are computed as the product of the correlation-weighted uncollateralized LGDs and the SN-specific Default Probabilities. The proposed analysis is based on ICC's current GWWR P/L calculation, but assumes that the GWWR Kendall-Tau correlation (currently the greatest of the estimate from the full historical time series, the immediate 250 observations prior to the analysis date, or the 250 observations associated with a relevant stress period) of each CP-Sovereign or Banking RF pair are assumed to approach one, modeling the simultaneous occurrence of losses. The Default Probabilities utilized under the proposed approach will reflect the greater of the average 1-year CP SN Default Probability and the Default Probability implied by a 500-bp spread level at the 1-year tenor.
Further, ICC proposes moving the current contagion GWWR P/L calculation from the `Methodology' section to the `General Wrong Way Risk and Contagion Stress Tests' section of the framework. ICC proposes adding language to the description of the current contagion GWWR P/L calculation, consisting of the correlation-weighted uncollateralized LGDs, to clarify that such scenario is considered extreme (as opposed to extreme but plausible). The extreme scenario is for information purposes only.
ICC proposes adding a new `Guaranty Fund Sizing Sensitivity Analysis' section to the Stress Testing Framework, which describes ICC's approach to Guaranty Fund (“GF”) sizing. ICC's GF model aims to establish financial resources that are sufficient to cover hypothetical losses associated with the simultaneous credit events where up to five SNs are impacted. Currently, two of the selected SNs are CP SNs (
ICC also proposes changes to the Stress Testing Framework to ensure compliance with CFTC Regulation 17 CFR 39.36. Specifically, ICC proposes adding an `Interest Rate Sensitivity Analysis' section to the Stress Testing Framework to ensure compliance with CFTC Regulation 17 CFR 39.36(b). Under the proposed analysis, ICC would shock the Euro and USD interest rate curves up and down to see which scenario lead to further erosion of the GF under the two worst spread based stress test scenarios. The addition of the interest rate sensitivity analysis will have no impact on ICC's GF sizing methodology. ICC also proposes changes to the `Methodology' section of the Stress Testing Framework related to the calculation of the P/L attributable to sequential or simultaneous defaults, to ensure compliance with 17 CFR 39.36(a). Under the current framework, for each CP Affiliate Group (“AG”), the Specific Wrong Way Risk (“SWWR”)P/L shows losses associated with positions that are self referencing to that CP AG; the remaining GF is then calculated for each CP AG. Under the proposed changes, the SWWR P/L will be expanded to also reflect the accumulation of losses associated with defaulted CP specific exposure and re-labeled “CP-WWR P/L”, where the new CP-WWR P/L for each CP AG will include losses associated with exposure to itself,
ICC proposes revisions to its Liquidity Risk Management Framework to ensure unification of the stress testing scenarios in the Liquidity Risk Management Framework and the Stress Testing Framework. ICC operates its stress testing and liquidity stress testing on a unified set of stress testing scenarios and system. As such, revisions to the liquidity stress testing scenarios are
Specifically, ICC proposes to revise the “Hypothetically Constructed (Forward Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios” to ensure consistency with the proposed changes to the Stress Testing Framework to incorporate additional losses related to the ELGD of all names in a CP's portfolio, not limited to those in the Banking or Sovereign sectors. The ELGD amount will accumulate the LGD of all of the SNs in the portfolio that do not explicitly enter a state of default, weighted by the market observed 1-year end-of-day Default Probability.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Further, the changes to the Liquidity Risk Management Framework to unify the liquidity stress testing scenarios with the stress testing scenarios set forth in Stress Testing Framework are necessary given the proposed changes to the Stress Testing Framework, as ICC operates its stress testing and liquidity stress testing on a unified set of stress testing scenarios and system. ICC's liquidity stress testing practices will continue to ensure the sufficiency of ICC's liquidity resources. As such, the proposed rule changes are designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. To the extent the Stress Testing Framework and Liquidity Risk Management Framework changes impact CPs, the Stress Testing Framework and Liquidity Risk Management Framework apply uniformly across all CPs. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2017-012 and should be submitted on or before September 21, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The purpose of this filing is to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 of Exchange Rule 4.11, Position Limits, to increase the position limits for options on the following exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and exchange traded notes (“ETNs”): iShares China Large-Cap ETF (“FXI”), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (“EFA”), iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (“EEM”), iShares Russell 2000 ETF (“IWM”), iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (“EFA”), iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (“EWZ”), iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund ETF (“TLT”), iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (“VXX”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQQ”), and iShares MSCI Japan Index [sic] (“EWJ”).
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
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.
Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage participation in the options market. Position limits for options on ETFs and ETNs, such as those subject to this proposal, are determined pursuant to Exchange Rule 4.11, and vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volume of the underlying stocks, ETFs, or ETNs over the past six-months. Pursuant to Exchange Rule 4.11, the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded stocks, ETFs, and ETNs have an option position limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization stocks, ETFs, and ETNs have position limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. Options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ are currently subject to the standard position limit of 250,000 contracts as set forth in Exchange Rule 4.11.
• Options on EEM are 500,000 contracts;
• Options on IWM are 500,000 contracts; and
• Options on QQQQ are 900,000 contracts.
The purpose of this proposal is to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Exchange Rule 4.11 to double the position and exercise limits for FXI, EEM, IWM, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, QQQQ, and EWJ.
The Exchange also proposed to make non-substantive corrections to the names of IWM and EEM in Rule 4.11, Interpretation and Policy .07.
• The position limits for options on EEM would be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts;
• The position limits on options on IWM would be increased from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts; and
• The position limits on options on QQQQ would be increased from 900,000 contracts to 1,800,000 contracts.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange represents that the above listed ETFs and ETNs qualify for either: (i) The initial listing criteria set forth in Exchange Rule 5.3.06(C) for ETFs holding non-U.S. component securities; or (ii) for ETFs and ETNs listed pursuant to generic listing standards for series of portfolio depository receipts and index fund shares based on
CBOE represents that more than 50% of the weight of the securities held by the options subject to this proposal are also subject to a CSA.
Market participants have increased their demand for options on FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ for hedging and trading purposes and the Exchange believes the current position limits are too low and may be a deterrent to successful trading of options on these securities. The Exchange has the collected following trading statistics on the ETFs and ETNs that are subject to this proposal:
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for QQQQ to 1,800,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of QQQQ to that of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), which has no position limits. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through August 14, 2017 for QQQQ was 26.25 million shares compared to 64.63 million shares for SPY. The total shares outstanding for QQQQ are 351.6 million compared to 976.23 million for SPY. The fund market cap for QQQQ is $50,359.7 million compared to $240,540 million for SPY. SPY is one of the most actively trading ETFs and is, therefore, subject to no position limits. QQQQ is also very actively traded, and while not to the level of SPY, should be subject to the proposed higher position limits based its trading characteristics when compared to SPY. The proposed position limit coupled with QQQQ's trading behavior would continue to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options and trading in its underlying the options.
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for EEM and IWM from 500,000 contracts to 1,000,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of EEM and IWM to that of QQQQ, which currently has a position limit of 900,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017 for EEM was 52.12 million shares
In support of its proposal to increase the position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX, and EWJ from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts, the Exchange compared the trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX and EWJ to that of EEM and IWM, both of which currently have a position limit of 500,000 contracts. As shown in the above table, the average daily trading volume through July 31, 2017 for FXI is 15.08 million shares, EFA is 19.42 million shares, EWZ is 17.08 million shares, TLT is 8.53 million shares, VXX is 55.04 million shares, and EWJ is 6.06 million shares compared to 52.12 million shares for EEM and 27.46 million shares for IWM. The total shares outstanding for FXI is 78.6 million, EFA is 1178.4 million, EWZ is 159.4 million, TLT is 60 million, VXX is 96.7 million, and EWJ is 303.6 million compared to 797.4 million for EEM and 253.1 million for IWM. The fund market cap for FXI is $3,343.6 million, EFA is $78,870.3 million, EWZ is $6,023.4 million, TLT is $7,442.4 million, VXX is $1,085.6 million, and EWJ is $16,625.1 million compared to $34.926.1 [sic] million for EEM and $35,809.1 million for IWM.
Market participants' trading activity has been adversely impacted by the current position limits for FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX and EWJ and such limits have caused options trading in these symbols to move from exchanges to the over-the-counter market. The above trading characteristics of FXI, EFA, EWZ, TLT, VXX and EWJ is either similar to that of EEM and IWM or sufficiently active enough so that the proposed limit would continue to address potential manipulative that may arise. Specifically, VXX has an average daily trading volume similar to EEM and higher than IWM. VXX has an options volume higher than EEM, more shares outstanding than IWM and a larger fund market cap than both EEM and IWM. EFA has far more shares outstanding and a larger fund market cap than EEM, IWM, and QQQQ. EWJ has a more shares outstanding than IWM and only slightly less shares outstanding than QQQQ.
On the other hand, while FXI, EWZ, and TLT do not exceed EEM, IWM or QQQQ is any of the specified areas, they are all actively trading so that market participant's trading activity has been impacted by them being restricted by the current position limits. The Exchange believes that the trading activity and these securities being based on a broad basket of underlying securities alleviates any potential manipulative activity that may arise. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, the Exchange's existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity.
The Exchange believes that increasing the position limits for the options subject to this proposal would lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for these options, which will benefit customers interested in this product. Under the proposal, the reporting requirement for the above options would be unchanged. Thus, the Exchange would still require that each Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) or TPH organization that maintains a position in the options on the same side of the market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report certain information to the Exchange. This information would include, but would not be limited to, the options' position, whether such position is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral used to carry the position, if applicable. Exchange Market-Makers
The Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures and reporting requirements at the Exchange, other options exchanges, and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options and underlying stocks.
Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.
The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address concerns that a TPH or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately large un-hedged position in the options subject to this proposal. Current margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or capital that a TPH must maintain for a large position held by itself or by its
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such as that proposed herein, is not novel and has been previously approved by the Commission. For example, the Commission has previously approved, on a pilot basis, eliminating position limits for options on.
Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that removing position and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities.
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. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal promotes competition because it will enable other exchanges who refer to the Exchange's rules concerning position limits to attract additional order flow from the over-the-counter market to exchanges, who would in turn compete amongst each other for those orders.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Department of State has approved the renewal of the charter for the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' (OBO) Industry Advisory Group for an additional two-year period. The group's annual meeting is held in the Harry S Truman Building at the U.S. Department of State, located at 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. Each meeting is devoted to an exchange of ideas between OBO's senior management and the group members on issues relating to property management; site acquisition; project planning; design and engineering; construction; facility maintenance; and building operations. The meetings are open to the public and are subject to advance registration and provision of required security information. Procedures for registration are included with each meeting announcement, no later than fifteen business days before each meeting.
OBO's mission is to provide safe, secure and functional facilities that represent the U.S. government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities represent American values and the best in American architecture, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.
For further information, please contact Christine Foushee at 312-353-1242 or
Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
WCL has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic on the Line needs to be rerouted; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of a rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line is pending either with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication) and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of service shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will be effective September 30, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),
A copy of any petition filed with Board should be sent to WCL's representative, Audrey L. Brodrick, Fletcher & Sippell LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Columbia & Cowlitz Railway, LLC (CLC), has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
CLC has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on September 30, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Melanie B. Yasbin, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
CLC has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by September 5, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CLC shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by CLC's filing of a notice of consummation by August 31, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Patriot Woods Railroad, LLC (PW) and Columbia & Cowlitz Railway, LLC (CLC) (collectively, Applicants), have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
Applicants have certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no overhead traffic to be rerouted; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
Where, as here, the carrier is abandoning its entire line, the Board does not normally impose labor protection under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), unless the evidence indicates the existence of: (1) A corporate affiliate that will continue substantially similar rail operations; or (2) A corporate parent that will realize substantial financial benefits over and above relief from the burden of deficit operations by its subsidiary railroad.
Any employee of CLC adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, these exemptions will be effective on September 30, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Melanie B. Yasbin, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void ab initio.
Applicants have filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by September 5, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), PW shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by PW's filing of a notice of consummation by August 31, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to reinstate a previously approved information collection. In order for the FAA to ensure safety it proposes to collect information from potential outdoor laser operators. The FAA will review the proposed laser activity against air traffic operations and verify that the laser operation will not interfere with air traffic operations.
Written comments should be submitted by October 30, 2017.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before October 30, 2017.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 8142, Washington, DC 20220, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
The information captured on these forms will be reviewed by the staff of the Department's Office of Civil Rights and Diversity to frame the claims for investigation and determine whether the claims are within the parameters established in 29 CFR part 1614. In addition, data from the complaint forms is collected and aggregated for the purpose of discerning whether any Department of the Treasury policies, practices or procedures may be curtailing the equal employment opportunities of any protected group.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
In this final rule, the Coast Guard is setting new rates for the 2017 shipping season for pilotage services on the Great Lakes. The Coast Guard is also updating its methodology for setting these rates. These updates to the methodology will incorporate the income generated from weighting factors into the ratemaking methodology used to set rates in this and future rulemakings. The Coast Guard believes that the new rates will continue to encourage pilot retention, ensure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage services on the Great Lakes, and provide adequate funds to upgrade and maintain infrastructure.
This final rule is effective October 2, 2017.
For information about this document call or email Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email
This final rule amends the Coast Guard's Great Lakes pilotage regulations by revising the current methodology by which the Coast Guard sets base rates for U.S. pilotage service on the Great Lakes, as well as revises the pilotage rates for the remaining portion of the 2017 shipping season. The new methodology adjusts target pilot compensation by inflation, incorporates revenue derived from weighting factor charges into the ratemaking model, and eliminates the provision that the hourly pilotage rate for designated waters could not rise above twice the rate for undesignated waters. We believe that the new methodology will continue to encourage pilot retention, ensure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage services on the Great Lakes, and provide adequate funds to upgrade and maintain infrastructure.
In addition to the changes in ratemaking methodology, this final rule makes several other additions to Great Lakes Pilotage regulations. It adds new language to billing practices for cancellation charges, clarifying that the minimum charge for canceling the request for a pilot is four hours plus reasonable travel expenses. The final rule also inserts a new mandatory change point at the Iroquois Lock point, ensuring that pilots are adequately rested on this stretch of water. Finally, we have made some textual changes to the regulations to better convey their intent, renaming the “return on investment” as “working capital fund,” and renaming the 2016 final rule staffing model as the “seasonal staffing model.”
Based on comments received, several items proposed in the NPRM were not adopted in this final rule. The Coast Guard has chosen not to adopt the 2107 NPRM staffing model, based on compelling arguments that this model did not accurately reflect the unpredictable workload of Great Lakes pilots. Furthermore, we did not move forward on our proposal to move the deadline for audited financial reports from April to January, based on commenters' arguments that this practice would impose hardship out of proportion to its benefit.
Based on updated financial information, increased pilot compensation, the new weighting factor calculations, and other changes to the ratemaking methodology, the revised Great Lakes pilotage rates are being lowered in most areas. We believe that this is a needed correction to better align our projected revenues with the pilot associations' actual collections, as evidence shows that pilotage revenue significantly exceeded what was projected in 2016, even factoring in above-average traffic. The changes in the rates are as follows:
The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this final rule on October 19, 2016 (81 FR 72011), covering a range of issues including revised operational expenses,
The Coast Guard received numerous comments in response to the issues raised in the NPRM and SNPRM. These commenters have largely come from Great Lakes maritime shipping stakeholders—both the pilots that perform pilotage services as well as the shipping companies that pay the pilotage fees—as well as other interested parties. We have closely analyzed all of the comment letters and have, where appropriate, incorporated ideas and suggestions from the comments into the analysis of our final rule.
The legal basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (the Act),
The purpose of this rule is to change our annual Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology, set new rates using that methodology, authorize a temporary hiring and training surcharge, and make several other adjustments. For more information on the goals and proposals in this rulemaking, see the discussion section in the NPRM
In this section, the Coast Guard reviews the comments received, and provides responses accordingly. In instances where multiple commenters provided insight into similar issues, we have grouped those comments into general categories. Wherever possible, we have attempted to provide citations to the particular comment referenced, and have tried to verify any data provided by the commenter. We have divided the comments up into four general categories: (1) General policy issues; (2) Rate calculation issues; (3) Incorporation of the weighting factors into the ratemaking methodology; and (4) Items for future consideration. These general categories have been further subdivided by issue, as discussed below.
The most frequently cited issue, raised by numerous commenters, concerned the costs of pilotage. In the NPRM, we proposed a variety of increases in pilotage rates. However, in the subsequent SNPRM, we proposed accounting for the weighting factor and thus lowered hourly pilotage rates accordingly. Numerous commenters, generally aligned with entities that ship goods or pay for shipping on the Great Lakes, made statements on the recent increases in the cost of pilotage over the last several years. For example, one commenter
We acknowledge that the some pilotage rates have increased in the past few years. In our revisions to the methodology, we have eliminated several ancillary fees and changed the billing scheme to meet our goal of aligning projected revenues with the actual association collections. We agree that the total revenues needed by the 3 U.S. Great Lakes Pilot Associations has increased about 40 percent over the past three years if we include the temporary surcharges, after many years of the pilot associations being unable to collect the amount of money our projections indicated would be appropriate. The additional pilots added to ensure continued safe, efficient and reliable pilotage service are the primary reason for the recent rate increases. It is important to note, however, that we have revised the temporary surcharges requirements so the revenues collected for the temporary surcharges will be removed from the expense base of future rates to ensure that the shippers do not pay for the same expense twice. After carefully considering the comments and measuring and assigning values to the variables addressed in the ratemaking methodology, we believe the resultant pilotage rates are fair.
One commenter
Other commenters argued that the recent increases in pilotage rates were necessary. One commenter stated that the recent, comparatively large increases were needed to correct inadequate increases in the past, arguing that “recent seemingly disproportionate increases [in pilotage rates] would have been unnecessary as they could have
We agree that the recent increases in pilotage rates since 2015 have been warranted. We are well aware that for many years the Coast Guard's methodology for calculating pilotage rates produced rates that failed to raise the target revenue. We have had years where actual revenue was above the target revenue, but below the revenue that we would have projected given the actual demand. In 2016, revenue was higher even than what we would have expected given the demand. While 2016 appears to be an outlier in that regard, it is our goal is to develop a methodology that aligns our projections with the actual amount of revenue the pilot associations generate based upon the realized demand for pilotage service. We believe that the methodology outlined in this final rule is a substantial improvement that will, on average, produce revenues that will cover operating expenses, pay for infrastructure maintenance and the training of new pilots, and offer compensation levels and a workload that will allow the pilot associations to recruit and retain pilots without producing excessive revenue to the detriment of shippers. We are willing to consider future adjustments as necessary to ensure revenue alignment. As discussed below, we believe that compensation levels are currently at a level that is effectively enticing pilots to join and stay in the workforce, and we are not substantially adjusting that in this final rule.
Several commenters complained that the cost of similar pilotage services differed depending on whether ships were assigned a U.S. or Canadian pilot, and that such differences were contrary to arrangements between the United States and Canada regarding cooperation in management of pilotage in the Great Lakes system. One commenter said that pilotage costs are much higher when the vessel is assigned a U.S. pilot, stating that “[f]or example, the pilotage expense for a Class 4 vessel transiting from Thunder Bay to St. Lambert costs $39,490 when a Canadian pilot is used, and $29,327 more when a U.S. pilot provides pilotage services.”
While the Coast Guard acknowledges that the rates for pilotage services are not identical, our rates for each given segment of a voyage are based upon an analysis of the historical pilotage hours and associated costs necessary to provide service on that segment. We cannot say how the Canadian GLPA determined the charges for corresponding voyage segments. We note that U.S. and Canadian pilots have different funding structures, infrastructure obligations, and compensation packages. There are other instances where U.S. pilotage rates are substantially lower than Canadian rates—for example, a harbor move on Lake Superior for a Class 2 vessel would cost $2,616.73 under Canadian rates, while the same move would cost only $607.20 under U.S. rates (both prices are in U.S. dollars). While some may argue the pilotage rates should be identical, we believe that the rates must primarily cover the cost of operating expenses, infrastructure maintenance, and fair compensation, which is how we have developed the current methodology. We are not offering an opinion as to how differences in infrastructure and compensation funding may alter the rate calculations by the Canadian association.
Finally, we also note that article 9 states that the MOU “is not an international agreement and does not give rise to any international legal rights or obligations.” The MOU is a non-binding agreement on cooperation between the Coast Guard and GLPA. The primary purpose of this document is to ensure an equitable share of work between the U.S. and Canadian registered pilots and coordinated pilotage service throughout the System. We interpret comparable rates to mean that the Coast Guard and GLPA will establish rates to cover costs incurred for providing pilotage service in the various areas, even though those costs may be different due to varying fee structures, distribution, labor costs, or other factors. For these reasons, while we acknowledge there are differences in the rates paid by the shipping companies, we still believe that basing the rates on the methodology described in this rulemaking is the most effective way to fund the U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations and necessary infrastructure.
One of the main goals of raising pilotage fees in recent Coast Guard rulemakings has been to reduce pilot attrition and attract new pilots to the region, ensuring a healthy number of mariners capable of handling the shipping traffic safely and with minimal delays. In the 2016 final rule, we stated that, “the [methodology established in the mid-1990s failed] to consider the totality of pilot time necessary to perform a given pilotage assignment, which often includes long transits to and from the vessel, resulting in low pilot compensation and overloaded work assignments.”
We received numerous comments from both pilots and shippers concerning pilot retention and attrition. Many commenters urged the Coast Guard to study pilot recruitment and retention factors, including the compensation of individual pilots, to determine the extent of the pilot retention problem and methods for combating low pilot retention. In response, we note that we have recently undertaken a target pilot compensation study, which we hope may help inform future rulemakings.
Pilots and pilot associations also offered comments pertaining to retention and attrition. The Western Great Lakes Pilots Association
The Coast Guard has recognized the pilotage recruitment and retention
Many commenters suggested that the Coast Guard should be using salaries for other U.S. pilots as a benchmark, rather than Canadian salaries, and noted that U.S. pilots in other areas often make far more in compensation. One commenter, the President of the Associated Branch Pilots for the Port of New Orleans, noted that the average pilot compensation for a pilot in that association was $459,051, and stated that a $312,000 target compensation level “would leave the Great Lakes pilots among the lowest paid pilots in America.”
Conversely, the Great Lakes Shippers Association argued that the Coast Guard should not use the compensation of other American pilots as a basis for computing target compensation. The shipping association, as part of its comments on the use of a compensation benchmark,
We recognize that there are a wide variety of factors that could be used for justifying both more and less compensation than pilots in other U.S. jurisdictions or Canadian pilots. While we believe, at this time, that a comparison with Canadian Great Lakes pilots offers the closest analogue, we are fully aware that there are still significant differences in the U.S. and Canadian compensation work schedules and compensation schemes, and as such, we intend to undertake a compensation study to better understand the wide array of factors at work. While that study should inform a future ratemaking, we believe that the current compensation target is a reasonable and comparable level because it is based on pilots that do substantially similar work on the same bodies of water. Our goal is to establish a target pilot compensation benchmark that promotes recruitment and retention without posing undue financial burden on shipping companies. We will ensure that we maintain transparency in our processes and calculations to establish and refine this benchmark.
One item addressed in the NPRM was new language in § 404.104 that would allow the Director to set compensation to a benchmark for a 10-year period. We stated that, when setting the compensation benchmark, we would set it based on the most relevant available non-proprietary information such as wage and benefit information from other pilotage groups (in the current case, based on Canadian Great Lakes pilot compensation cited in the 2016 NPRM). Subsequently, for a period of up to 10 years, the target compensation number would simply be adjusted for inflation. We noted that this would promote target compensation stability and rate predictability. As seen in the NPRM, where the Coast Guard noted a significant change in the relative value of the Canadian dollar that could have changed the target compensation figure significantly, resetting the compensation benchmark repeatedly could lead to large swings in year-to-year targets and have negative effects on the stability of pilot earnings.
Having reviewed the various comments on this issue as well as considered the ratemaking methodology generally, we believe that using a compensation benchmark to establish annual adjustments in target compensation is an efficient means to ensure rate stability. We believe that, at any time after a compensation benchmark is established, there may be grounds to review it. Use of a compensation benchmark promotes rate and compensation stability, while providing the Coast Guard with the flexibility to make improvements over time based on market conditions. For this reason, we are finalizing the proposed language in § 404.104.
Several commenters mentioned the compensation benchmark, but instead of discussing the use of a compensation benchmark generally, they discussed the inputs into the current compensation benchmark. One commenter argued that the Coast Guard should not base the compensation benchmark on the average compensation for other U.S. pilots. We note that this was never the proposal, and we merely proposed to use a benchmark. In the NPRM, we wrote that “the compensation benchmark would be based on the most relevant available non-propriety information
As discussed in the NPRM, we believe that the use of a compensation benchmark is a better method for starting the calculation for the compensation of pilots, as opposed to undertaking a complete re-evaluation of the compensation structure for U.S. pilots each year. The primary rationale is the promotion of workforce stability, which is necessary for the system to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. The Great Lakes pilotage system needs target pilot compensation stability to achieve and maintain workforce stability. As is common practice in many sectors of employment, levels of compensation that are highly volatile can lead to difficulty attracting and retaining qualified employees. Given the high skill levels and lengthy training requirements required of Great Lakes pilots, as well as the dynamic nature of the commodities trade that makes up much of the shipping traffic in the area, we do not believe that a full re-evaluation of compensation every year is conducive to maintaining a system of safe and reliable pilotage.
Many commenters,
The Coast Guard realizes that these issues are important, and may warrant more in-depth study. To that effect, the Coast Guard has commissioned a compensation study and an economic impact study to better inform our ratemaking process. Until these studies are completed, we are proceeding with the ratemaking methodology we describe in this final rule. We remain open to persons providing information about these important issues, and note that such information can always be provided to the Coast Guard or to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC) outside the context of a particular ratemaking action.
Another item the Coast Guard discussed in its NPRM was a proposal to adjust § 403.300(c) to require submission of an unqualified audit by January 31 of each year, rather than the existing requirement that it be submitted on April 1. Our goal was to expedite the availability of audit information so it could be used in the publication of the NPRM by the next summer. The net result would be to reduce the delay between the actual expenses and their recoupment from 3 to 2 years. We requested comment on whether such a deadline would be feasible.
One commenter
However, most comments, including those from the 3 U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations on this issue, took the opposite stance. These comments were unanimously opposed to the proposed January 31 deadline stating that preparing audited financial statements by that date would be infeasible due to the tight time constraints, or if required, would be extremely expensive. Commenters noted that the requirement to provide numbers by this earlier date would require extensive effort and significantly increase costs, and we did not receive any recommendations for an alternate date.
Based on the feedback we received, we are not making any changes to the audit deadline at this time. We agree that we would like to reduce the lag time between the revenue and expense audits and the information we use for our rulemakings. However, based upon the comments from the pilot associations, at this time we do not believe that the reported costs of accelerating the reporting date to January 31 would be worth the reported increase in expense. We do note, however, that we will seek further input on this topic at a future GLPAC meeting.
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed adding a requirement to the surcharge regulation in § 401.401. We proposed that once a pilot association collects the amount of money allowable for recoupment, the pilot association's authorization to collect that surcharge would terminate for the remainder of the shipping season. We proposed this to prevent surcharge receipts from exceeding the target amount, which will eliminate the need to make subsequent adjustments to the operating expenses for the following year.
One commenter
Based on the comments we received, we are finalizing the additions to the surcharge provision in § 401.401. We also note that the existing audit requirements for operating expenses include a line item for training expenses, so that it is clear how much money is expended for that purpose. Because of the three-year delay in the use of audited expenses, the training costs, which were introduced in the 2015 ratemaking for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, will be incorporated into, and adjusted for, the operating expenses for the 2018 ratemaking. The surcharge was expanded to the Lake Pilots Association and Western Great Lakes Pilots
Finally, in the NPRM, we proposed adding a mandatory change point at the Iroquois Lock. While we did receive comments as to how this would affect the total number of pilots needed for the rate-setting calculations (which is discussed below), we did not receive any comments on the merits of the idea itself. We are therefore finalizing this provision without change in this final rule.
In this section, we discuss the comments related to the specific ratemaking at issue for 2017, as well as lay out the method by which we arrived at the final 2017 rates. The ratemaking process is specified in 46 CFR 404, 101 through 110. Each section below corresponds to one of the sections in the CFR.
Step 1 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard review and recognize the previous year's operating expenses (§ 404.101). We reviewed the independent accountant's financial reports for each association's 2014 expenses and revenues.
We received information with regard to lobbying expenses associated with American Pilots Association (APA) dues. We attributed 15 percent of APA dues to legal fees in the NPRM. This should have been 5 percent.
We received comments from the three U.S. Great Lakes Pilot Associations regarding the exclusion of legal fees from recognized operating expenses. Specifically, in our review of the 2014 operating expenses, we did not recognize certain legal expenses from K&L Gates, totaling $47,256. The commenters stated that they did not understand why these expenses were not recognized and requested that we reclassify these expenses as allowable fees. We disagree that these K&L Gates legal fees should be included. We disallowed the fees for K&L Gates because we could not determine whether or not these funds were used for lobbying or legal services. Per the requirements in paragraph 404.2(b)(6), lobbying fees are not allowable expenses for reimbursement. We contacted the pilot associations to request additional documentation that these fees were associated with legal services and not lobbying, but we did not receive any documentation to show which costs were attributable to legal services, and which were attributable to lobbying work.
In addition, the three pilot associations requested that we recognize legal expenses in the amount of $75,049 incurred in their litigation against the Coast Guard regarding the 2014 final rule. This amount represents the difference between legal fees incurred and the amount the Coast Guard paid in its settlement with the pilot associations. Pursuant to § 404.2(6), expenses incurred against the United States are not recoupable as recognized operating expenses. The pilots argue that this section of the regulations was improperly adopted in the 2016 final rule. We do not believe that the 2017 Annual Rulemaking is the appropriate venue to address the procedural aspects of the 2016 final rule.
A commenter from the Lakes Pilots Association noted that certain operating expenses, relating to the payment of applicant pilot salaries, had been omitted from the operating expenses of District Two. Specifically, the commenter noted that payment of training salaries should be considered as an operating expense instead of treated as pilot compensation. We agree that as applicant pilots are not counted as pilots for the purposes of calculating general pilot compensation, and this occurred prior to the use of surcharges to pay for applicant pilot salaries, these salaries should be recognized as an operating expense. The surcharge provision for funding applicant pilots did not impact rates until 2015 and the 2014 Annual Rulemaking did not provide funding for this activity. Therefore, we added the amount, $281,588, to the operating expenses of District Two to recoup the 2014 expense incurred in training applicant pilots that year.
The recognized expenses for the various Districts are as follows:
Step 2 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard project next year's operating expenses, and adjust for inflation or deflation (§ 404.102). In the NPRM, we adjusted for inflation and projected expenses for 2017 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United States
Step 3 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard determine the number of pilots needed to complete all assignments (§ 404.103). In the NPRM, we proposed to modify our pilotage demand calculation to focus on the pilot work cycle, including elements such as travel, rest, pilot boat time, and other items in addition to the time spent on the bridge of a ship. Based on the comments received, we have determined that transitioning to this model, in which all traffic is treated equally for the purpose of determining the number of pilots needed, would result in traffic delays, overwork of pilots, and possible compromises to safety on the Great Lakes. For these reasons, we are not finalizing the proposed changes to § 404.103.
It is important to note that Step 3 produces two different sets of numbers associated with the respective sections of § 404.103. The first number, described in paragraphs (a) through (c), is used to establish the number of pilots the Coast Guard believes are needed to provide safe and efficient pilotage service in each area. This number provides guidance to pilot associations and the Director of Great Lakes Pilotage in making determinations about hiring decisions and the authorization of new pilots. The second number, described in paragraph (d), is based on the number of persons applying for pilot positions under 46 CFR 401. For purposes of setting Great Lakes pilotage rates in § 401.405, only the number derived from the 404.103(d) analysis is used in the ratemaking calculations.
Most commenters provided comments on the model used to determine the number of pilots needed. In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed replacing the existing staffing model, which we call the 2016 final rule staffing model, with a model that analyzed shipping traffic throughout the entire shipping season, and which we are calling the 2017 NPRM staffing model.
The functional result of the proposed change to the staffing model was to reduce the total number of pilots needed to service the Great Lakes system by 5, from a total of 54 under the previous staffing model to a total of 49 under the proposed new staffing model. We received a large number of comments, especially from pilots, regarding how this change in modeling could affect their workload, lifestyle, stress levels, and overall retention rates, as discussed below.
The 2017 NPRM staffing model had a number of substeps and we received comment on nearly all of these substeps. The substeps and associated comments are discussed below.
The first step of the process is to determine how long it takes for a pilot to undertake a full piloting cycle, that is, to board a ship, provide pilotage services, disembark, rest, travel back to a port location, and complete any administrative tasks associated with providing pilotage service. We used the “Average-Through Transit Time” between change points
One commenter
The commenter noted that while the Coast Guard had increased the number of pilot assignments to account for the mandatory change point at Iroquois Lock, it had not adjusted the Average-Through Transit Time to account for the shorter trips due to the change point. The commenter asserted that instead of using a figure of 10.8 hours, the Coast Guard should replace that figure with a transit time of 6 hours. This change
We believe that this comment is justified, and that under conditions where we are calculating transit through times for a single pilot, this would be a reasonable change. However, we are not adopting the 2017 NPRM staffing model, but we are retaining the 2016 final rule staffing model. In such a model, we calculate transit through the Iroquois Lock using double pilotage, where the fatigue issue is mitigated by a second pilot. For that reason, under double pilotage, pilots do not have to change at the Iroquois Lock, and we can continue to use the full 10.8 hour average through transit time.
One commenter
We acknowledge that we use different bridge hour inputs when calculating the Average-Through Transit Time and the calculation for the expected traffic. For staffing purposes, we are assuming that each assignment will go between the mandatory change points in a given pilotage district to ensure that we have enough pilots to handle traffic. This is a situation where efficiency and safety are in conflict. We believe the safety concerns associated with having too few pilots outweigh the financial burden on the rate payers. The methodology established in the 1990s used a similar bridge hour standard in multiple steps throughout the ratemaking process. This caused problems with recruitment and retention, revenue shortfalls, lack of training, and a resistance to infrastructure investment and maintenance. We intentionally decided to only include a historic bridge hour input in determining the hourly rate for services and use the number of assignments (assuming that each assignment would be average maximum time between two change points) for staffing.
However, we realize that this system of basing the pilot cycle on the transit through time, as opposed to the average trip time, is better suited to the 2016 final rule staffing model, rather than the 2017 NPRM staffing model. As we stated in the 2016 final rule, it makes sense to use the full transit through time for conditions at the opening and close of the season, as a high percentage of trips during that time are through transit trips to ensure the pilot associations are sufficiently staffed to provide adequately rested pilots during the time of the season when the conditions are most challenging. Conversely, when calculating the total revenues we expect the associations to collect, we use the historic traffic data, which provides a more accurate accounting of revenue. Unlike the issue of staffing of vessels, it does not make a difference when revenue is collected during the shipping season.
As the commenter points out, the transition from 2016 final rule staffing model to the 2017 NPRM staffing model, without reevaluating the full ratemaking methodology, can cause these types of logical discrepancies. This is one reason that we are not adopting the 2017 NPRM staffing model in the final rule, and are instead relying on the 2016 final rule staffing model to determine an adequate capacity.
In the next part of the 2017 NPRM staffing model, we divided the Seasonal Availability (the total amount of time which we expect a pilot to be available, which is 4,800 hours, or 200 days
In the third step, we multiplied the theoretical maximum number of assignments per pilot by an “efficiency factor” of 50 percent, which is based upon the Coast Guard's 2013 “Bridge Hour and Methodology Study Final Report,”
We received comments criticizing the efficiency factors from a variety of sources. One commenter stated that it was “nothing more than a placeholder number from a study rejected by both pilots and industry at GLPAC.”
While we understand the concept of this proposal, we do not agree that the historic average of assignments is a useful tool for the following reasons. The mid-1990s methodology excluded many of the pilot assignment cycle time inputs to determine a seasonal workload. Additionally, the goal of providing 10 days of recuperative rest for 7 months of the season was introduced in the 2016 Annual Rulemaking, in response to National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, letters from Congress asking us to address recruitment and
We believe the efficiency factor of 0.5 is supported by the Bridge Hour and Methodology Study Final Report. In response to concerns about the methodology used to calculate shipping rates, GLPAC unanimously recommended that an independent party conduct a comprehensive review of the methodology established in the mid-1990s to calculate pilotage rates. GLPAC reviewed the scope of the study, entitled “Bridge Hour and Methodology Study Final Report,” expanded the study's scope, and unanimously approved the scope of the study. This included one-on-one meetings with all of the stakeholders, two focus groups, and additional GLPAC meetings. Based on the study's findings, the Coast Guard developed the efficiency factor. The study recommended that we consider an efficiency factor between 0.4 and 0.6 for staffing. However, we provided additional guidance with regard to mandatory change points and required rest between assignments in 2014, incorporated changes based upon recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board in 2015, and implemented significant changes to the methodology in 2016 Annual Rulemaking.
While the various stakeholders rejected the final recommendations of the study for different reasons, none of the criticisms of the study accused its final recommendations of being a “placeholder.” One group did not think the study went far enough to recommend changes that were outside of the scope of the study. Another group did not think the study went far enough to guarantee time off for the pilots or establish an acceptable compensation standard. While we are not using the efficiency factor in this final rule, we continue to believe that a 0.5 efficiency factor would be reasonable if it were being used in a staffing model.
One commenter
We disagree with the assertions that we used incorrect assumptions that resulted in an unrealistically low value. Even though the shipping season is 270 days, we only expect the pilots to be on the tour-de-role for 200 days a season (noting that they receive 10 days off per month for seven of the nine months of the season) so the correct comparison would be the number of days worked to the number of days available for assignment which is 56 percent (112 assignments/200 days). This does not seem unrealistically low, as the total cycle time is often over one day. Furthermore, we know that the demand for pilot services is not spread uniformly across the entire season, and there will be times when a pilot is idle for substantial periods of time between assignments. It is quite rare that a pilot returns after an assignment and is immediately able to start a new assignment, and that usually only occurs when there is a backlog of ships awaiting pilots. Simply put, all of this represents inherent inefficiencies in the system and, for these reasons, an efficiency factor of 50 percent is appropriate.
Having determined the number of assignments that a pilot can reasonably be expected to handle in a shipping season, we move to calculate how many pilots are needed to handle the amount of traffic. To do this, we divided the measured number of actual assignments (averaged over a 10-year period) by the estimated number of assignments per pilot to estimate the total number of pilots needed for a segment within an area. This produces a figure of how many pilots are needed to handle the total amount of traffic in an area.
Because of the detailed manner in which calculations of pilots are carried out, the raw calculations often end up suggesting a fractional number of pilots. In the NPRM, we stated that, “when the calculation [of total pilots needed] results in a fraction of a pilot, we round pilot numbers up to the nearest whole pilot. We do this to avoid shortening our demand calculation and also to compensate for the role of the district presidents as both working pilots and representatives of their associations. We believe the rounding is justified to meet the needs of the staffing model and also to ensure the presidents of the pilot associations are able to effectively engage in meetings and communications with stakeholders throughout the Great Lakes region and the Coast Guard.” (81 FR 72016-7).
Several commenters argued that our rounding convention, in which we rounded up to the nearest whole number rather than rounding up or down, unnecessarily increased the number of pilots. One commenter argued that the Coast Guard's stated rationale in the 2017 NPRM for rounding up in all situations is flawed. The commenter suggested that the Coast Guard should not build in time for meetings and outreach activities into the pilot numbers, and stated that if the pilot associations believe those are essential elements of officer functions, they should instead adjust their distribution practices to encourage those functions.
We disagree that the efficiency factor is the proper forum in which to address a pilot's ancillary duties, such as acting as an association president. The ability of a pilot president to engage in the running of the association, respond to Coast Guard inquiries, and attend necessary meetings further takes away from his ability to provide pilotage service. The efficiency factor adjustment is designed to determine how efficiently a pilot can undertake piloting activities, and does not address these other required activities.
The commenter also argued that the method by which the Coast Guard rounded up pilot numbers in the 2017 NPRM deviates from the 2016 NPRM.
The Coast Guard also received a comment that it had applied unnecessary rounding to the Iroquois Lock calculation, resulting in an overestimate of the number of pilots needed. The commenter wrote, “According to GPLO calculations, without rounding, District One would need a total of 9.11 pilots to handle anticipated demand in District One, Area 1. With rounding, GLPO proposes that 11 pilots are needed.”
We believe the coalition's calculations are incorrect. In the NPRM, we calculated that District One, Area 1, would need a total of 9.11 pilots (3.4 + 5.71), for the increased number of assignments due to the mandatory change point at Iroquois Lock. However, this was rounded up to 10 not 11. This is shown in Table 9 of the NPRM, where we stated that the total number of pilots required for the designated waters of District One, Area 1, is 10.
In evaluating this comment, however, we did discover one issue with our rounding convention. While the text of paragraph 404.103(c) reads, in part, “[t]he number of pilots needed in each district is calculated by totaling the area results by district and rounding them to the nearest whole integer,” the Coast Guard made an error in its rounding calculations by rounding the number of pilots in each area, rather than in each district. There are circumstances where this could have resulted in an increase of an extra pilot (if, for example, two areas required 0.7 pilots). We have corrected this mistake in the final rule and are rounding by district.
Several commenters discussed the proposed change from 2016 final rule staffing model to the 2017 NPRM staffing model in general terms, without referring to specific portions of the calculations.
One commenter, a Great Lakes pilot, argued that the number of pilots proposed in the 2017 calculations would fall short of what is needed to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage.
We received comments from the Western Great Lakes Pilot Association President which suggested that using an average staffing model, as proposed in the 2017 NPRM, would result in unacceptable delays for cruise ships. We recognize that the various types of vessels that employ U.S. and Canadian registered pilots have different tolerances for delays due to the lack of pilot availability. One method to address the varying tolerance for delays is through adjusting the regulations that deal with dispatching. The current system is to strictly assign pilots on a first-come, first-serve basis. We plan to discuss this issue during the next GLPAC meeting to investigate whether that standard should be modified, and the potential implications such modifications would have on the System and hourly pilotage rates.
For many of the reasons the commenters described above, we realize that there are flaws with the 2017 NPRM staffing model. Based upon the comments received, particularly those that highlighted the variations in traffic throughout the season and the inconsistencies in the use of average trips vs. through time, we have concluded that our data does not support using the 2017 NPRM staffing model. For those reasons, we have decided to not to adopt the 2017 NPRM staffing model, and continue to use the 2016 final rule staffing model.
We note, however, that in the NPRM, we proposed to adjust the wording of 46 CFR 404.104 by replacing the word “peak” with the word “seasonal.” While we are not adopting the proposed new staffing model, we believe that “seasonal” is a more appropriate term to use, as instances of high demand often occur at various points in the seasons, and so are maintaining that textual change in the final rule.
We agree with both shippers and pilots that the proposed 2017 NPRM staffing model may not achieve the required goals of promoting safe and efficient pilotage, and that averaging traffic through an entire season may not adequately account for mid-season variations in demand. In this final rule, we maintain the staffing model we adopted in the 2016 final rule. Even though we have used the label “peak demand” for the 2016 staffing model, we believe some have misinterpreted this label. This model uses the pilot assignment cycle and average late-seasonal traffic demand over the past 10 shipping seasons to establish the number of pilots necessary to move that traffic. We did not establish staffing levels to eliminate delays throughout the season by reviewing 10 years of historic traffic and ensuring that sufficient pilots would be on the tour-de-role throughout the season to eliminate delays. We believe our approach provides sufficient pilots to deal with the opening of the Seaway and the late season rush, in addition to other high-traffic periods, in a safe and reliable manner while also accounting for mid-season demand variations and providing the pilots with sufficient opportunity to achieve 10 days of recuperative rest during 7 months of the season. We are willing to evaluate potential adjustments to this model in the future if we receive specific delay tolerances from those stakeholders concerned about this issue. We discussed staffing during the previous GLPAC meeting and plan to discuss staffing and delay tolerance during future meetings.
Using the 2016 final rule model, we have recalculated the number of pilots needed for each district. First, we note that use of this model considers the extensive use of double pilotage during the opening and closing of the shipping season. This is because, during the opening and closing of the season, the aids to navigation may not be in place, the weather can be volatile and extreme, sea smoke and fog appear with little notice, and ice conditions routinely present unique challenges to navigation. It is also during these periods that the pilots are working diligently to ensure all vessels exit the system before the locks close. For these reasons, we tend to authorize double pilotage during the opening and closing in designated waters for District One and District Two. District Three tends to engage in day-
Additionally, we note that the use of double pilotage avoids concern about how the proposed rule's modeling system dealt with the inclusion of the new mandatory change point at the Iroquois Lock. Several commenters had noted that while the Coast Guard had mandated the change, it had not updated its models to account for a shorter average transit through time the change would produce. However, during periods of double pilotage, because there are two pilots onboard that can share the duty, there is no need to do a pilot change at the Iroquois Lock.
Similar to the 2017 NPRM staffing model, we start the 2016 final rule staffing model by calculating the pilot cycle time, as shown the tables below:
District Two is unique in the fact that the mandatory change points do not align with the border of designated and undesignated waters. The mandatory change point is located at Detroit, but the boundary for designated and undesignated waters occurs at the Southeast Shoal of Lake Erie. We based the average through transit for each of these segments, as follows:
District Three is unique in that steel-importing vessels transit to Chicago/Burns Harbor while grain-exporting vessels depart from Duluth and Thunder Bay. During the opening and closing of the shipping season, the System experiences numerous vessels that make an inbound or outbound transit in ballast.
We then determine the average late-season traffic demand over the base period, as shown in table 6. This number is derived by dividing the number of assignments by the number of days in the corresponding pilot cycle. Numbers for designated areas are doubled due to the need for double pilotage during late peak seasonal period, as described above. Table 6 also shows the number of pilots that would be authorized using the traffic information from 2007-2016.
Based
As stated above, paragraph 404.103(d) produces a separate number of pilots, which is used for the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking procedure. That section requires the Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to determine the number of pilots expected to be fully working and compensated based on the number of persons applying become U.S. Great Lakes registered pilots, and on information provided by the district's pilotage association. In the NPRM, the Coast Guard projected that there would be 17 pilots in District One, 13 pilots in District Two, and 15 pilots in District Three, for a total of 45 pilots.
In the NPRM, after determining the number of pilots needed in each district in Step 3, the Coast Guard proposed adding additional applicant pilots in District Two and District Three. The Coast Guard believes these applicant pilots are necessary to prepare for future retirements, given the long training periods associated with new pilots. Currently, 4 of the pilots in District Two are over 62 years of age, and 6 of the pilots in District Three are over 61 years of age. These pilots represent nearly 30 percent of the pilot strength in each of these districts. Waiting until these pilots retire to replace them will result in significant delays and may denigrate safety, because the pilot association will be short-staffed. These pilots are needed in addition to the existing shortage of pilots (District Two is one pilot short of the needed number, while District Three is seven pilots short). Therefore, the Coast Guard proposed authorizing a surcharge in 2017 to fund these additional applicant pilots.
We received several comments on this issue. One commenter
We disagree. The regulations allow a registered pilot to work until the age of 70. Just because a pilot can keep his full registration until age 70, doesn't mean that all of the pilots will work until that age. In the past several years, a number of pilots have retired prior to age 70. While we are in close contact with the US pilot associations to plan for future retirements, we do not feel it is prudent to assume that all of the current pilots will work until age 70.
Once commenter
Based on our analysis of the pilotage numbers and the comments received, we have not modified the number of working pilots for 2017. Both the 2017 NPRM staffing model and the 2016 final rule staffing model produce more pilots than the 3 U.S. pilot associations have fully trained. Therefore, when we established 45 working pilots in the NPRM, we knew that the system needed more time to acquire and train the additional pilots. We will continue to monitor and work with the pilot associations to ensure that the associations continue to make progress toward our staffing goals. The final numbers for the 2017 Step 3 calculations are 17 pilots for District One, 13 pilots for District Two, and 15 pilots for District Three, for a total of 45 pilots. Pursuant to 46 CFR 404.104, these are the numbers we will be using in our rate calculations.
Step 4 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard determine the target pilot compensation (§ 404.104). In the 2016 final rule, the Coast Guard used the Canadian pilot compensation as the benchmark for the U.S. pilot compensation, and then made an adjustment for foreign exchange differences and inflation. The Coast Guard then increased the U.S. target pilot compensation by 10 percent over the projected GLPA figure to account for the differences in the status of U.S. and Canadian pilots and the different compensation systems in place in the two countries. In the 2017 NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed keeping the target pilot compensation at the 2016 levels.
In this section, we discuss comments relating to our calculations to get to the target compensation as discussed in the 2016 final rule and the 2017 NPRM, which uses the Canadian salary plus 10 percent as the target. In the section regarding setting a compensation benchmark above, we separately discussed the issue of using different compensation benchmarks, such as the compensation packages for pilots in other U.S. Associations or salaries of first mates or other crewmembers. For the reasons described in that section, we continue to believe that the benchmark established in the 2016 final rule, based on Canadian pilot salaries plus a 10 percent differential to calculate the value of certain benefits, is an appropriate level of compensation. In this section, we discuss the specific comments related to the calculation of the compensation benchmark.
Several commenters suggested that the use of Canadian pilot salaries was an inappropriate yardstick by which to base U.S. salaries. One commenter argued that it was inappropriate because U.S. and Canadian pilot associations cannot recruit workers from the same pool of individuals.
Several pilot associations argued that the Coast Guard should base Great Lakes compensation figures on the salaries earned by other U.S. pilot associations. Several commenters provided figures, noting that in other areas, U.S. pilots earned upwards of $450,000 per year. One commenter
In some regions governed by local pilotage associations, compensation figures appear to be much higher than those proposed by the Coast Guard. It is unclear why some U.S. pilot associations receive compensation levels much higher than that of Canadian pilots or U.S. masters and mates, based on the alternative sources of information that we have.
Even for those commenters who agreed that the comparison between U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes pilots was the most apt, we received comments that our calculations erred in a variety of ways. Many commenters offered statements regarding the calculations of Canadian pilots' average total compensation, arguing that in certain areas, the Coast Guard had overestimated or underestimated the total amount, or made errors in its conversion of the value of Canadian compensation to American currency. In the NPRM, we recognized that the most challenging portion of our target compensation analysis was the conversion of Canadian benefits into equivalent United States benefits, and many commenters argued that we had underestimated total compensation in a variety of ways.
One commenter argued that the Coast Guard underestimated Canadian compensation by averaging the compensation of four contract and three apprentice pilots, along with 49 full-time, regular Canadian pilots, into the compensation total.
While we agree with the commenter that contract and apprentice pilots should not have been included in the calculations of pilot salaries, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that they were included in our calculations. The Coast Guard did not base its calculations on the annual report the commenter cited, but received information from the GLPA directly. When the GLPA provided the Coast Guard with the information regarding Canadian compensation, it did not include these contract and apprentice pilots.
Another commenter
One issue that arose regarding compensation figures is the conversion from Canadian to U.S. currency. Comments from the Great Lakes Shippers Association requested the Coast Guard to recalculate the baseline compensation figure using updated exchange rate figures. The commenter stated that the Coast Guard's “decision in the 2017 NPRM to disregard fluctuations in the U.S./Canadian exchange rate is inconsistent with the 2016 NPRM.”
The shipping association comments requested that, given the decline in exchange rates between the U.S. and Canadian dollars, the Coast Guard dramatically lower the target compensation. The commenter stated that “assuming a 1.329 average exchange rate and 2 percent inflation per year, U.S. pilot compensation in 2017 would be $240,149”.
We acknowledge that the exchange rate had changed substantially, and that our original translation of Canadian benefits to U.S. dollars is based on the 2014 exchange rate. This rate has fluctuated significantly in recent years, for example, changing from 1.149 CAD:1 USD in 2014 to 1.329 CAD:1 USD in 2015.
Other commenters wanted the Coast Guard to revisit its calculation of compensation and increase it, citing a number of factors. One commenter
The commenter
The same commenter also stated the healthcare compensation is different between American and Canadian pilots, and further supports a factor higher than 10 percent. The commenter noted a Canadian pilot pays no out-of-pocket expenses for dental or general healthcare coverage, while an American pilot typically pays $25,000 annually for a reasonably comprehensive healthcare plan. The commenter cited that the MM&P Pilot Membership Health plan annual cost is $28,965 and an American pilot association includes $30,000 annually per pilot for healthcare. Further, American pilots must pay for long-term disability insurance while Canadian pilots have no out-of-pocket costs for long-term disability coverage. For these reasons, the commenter requested “the Coast Guard to revise its factor to at least 25 percent and perhaps more in order to achieve its goal of equivalency”.
Despite the importance of these issues, this information does not relate to an issue that the Coast Guard proposed to address in the 2017 ratemaking process. In 2016, the Coast Guard conducted a substantial re-baselining of the compensation benchmark, and considered these issues closely, arriving at the $326,114 annual compensation figure. In the 2017 ratemaking, it was not our intention to
We did receive one comment on the compensation figure that did not involve re-examining the benchmark. This commenter suggested that the 2016 figure should be adjusted for inflation so that pilots would continue to receive the same income in real terms. We agree with this commenter. To remain stable in real terms, such a benchmark would need be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis. This will achieve the Coast Guard's goal of maintaining stability in real (as opposed to nominal) compensation. For this reason, we are adjusting the 2017 target compensation by the Midwest Consumer Price Index of 2.1 percent, for a total figure of $332,963 per year. We intend to adjust the compensation figure for inflation annually in future ratemaking actions, the same way that operating expenses are adjusted for inflation.
Based on the analysis, the calculations for step 4 are as follows:
Step 5 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard determine the working capital fund (proposed § 404.105). In the NPRM, we proposed changing the term for this step from “Project return on investment” to “Determine working capital fund.” Even though we proposed changing the name of the step, we did not propose changing the calculation.
The Coast Guard described the calculation of the working capital fund in the NPRM.
One commenter stated the Coast Guard is not using the working capital fund to attract capital, and that this fund is better described as “cash reserves for operating expenses.” Similarly, the commenter
We disagree that the working capital fund should be abolished and that infrastructure improvements should only be paid for with surcharges. We believe that surcharges are a poor method for paying for infrastructure projects, which are often capital-intensive, with large upfront costs. It would be risky to try and recover these large upfront costs through surcharges due to general volatility in shipping levels, which might not cover the fixed costs of infrastructure. Using surcharges
Step 6 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard determine the projected revenue for the next year (§ 404.106). The needed revenue is determined by adding the proposed § 404.102 operating expense, the proposed § 404.104 total target compensation, and the proposed § 404.105 working capital fund. We did not receive any comments related to this step.
Step 7 in our ratemaking methodology requires that the Coast Guard make the initial base rate calculations. To make our initial base rate calculations, we first establish a multi-year base period from which we can draw available and reliable data on actual pilot hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters. In the NPRM, we proposed using data covering 2007
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard sought public comment on how we should handle weighting factors in 46 CFR 401.400, which outlines the calculations for determining the weighting factors for a vessel subject to compulsory pilotage. This calculation determines which multiplication factor will be applied to the pilotage fees. The Coast Guard presented three options and requested public comment on which option should be implemented for future ratemakings. After receiving public comments on the NPRM, the Coast Guard decided to seek additional comments on this issue in a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The first option was to maintain the status quo. This would maintain the collection of the current weighting factors and continue to exclude this revenue from the ratemaking calculation.
The second option was to remove weighting factors completely from the regulations and charge every vessel equally for pilotage service because a ship's dimensions have little impact on the experience and skill level of the pilot providing the service. We note that this option could mean simply charging every vessel the current “base rate,” or it could mean adjusting the rates for vessels so all vessels pay the current average weighted rate.
The third option was to incorporate weighting factors into the ratemaking through an additional step that examines and projects their impact on the revenues of the pilot associations. This might enable us to better forecast revenue, but it would add another variable to the projections in the ratemaking methodology.
One commenter said that they “strongly urge the Coast Guard to maintain the status quo on weighting factors, at least until actual data suggest that changes are necessary and appropriate.”
One commenter
The commenter stated that they support the Coast Guard's proposed third alternative for weighting factors, and suggested we use an average weighting factor from either the current navigation season or the last full year of available data in order to project revenues for the next ratemaking. The commenter suggested we use an average weighting factor between 1.2 and 1.3.
The argument that not including the revenue from the weighting factors into our calculation of total revenue would throw off the calculations made intrinsic sense. Under the new methodology introduced in 2016, pilotage is billed on an hourly basis, and if actual revenues were approximately 25 percent higher than traffic would suggest they should be, then the weighting factors would appear to be the cause of that discrepancy. Under its own initiative, the Coast Guard examined the initial revenue reports from the 2016 shipping season from all three districts, and compared that to an average of weighting factor charges collected through the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System. The resulting comparison showed that the actual revenues were substantially higher than predicted—even given the higher-than-average traffic in 2016. The difference in expected revenue tracked closely, but not exactly, with the calculated average weighting factor in each District. This meant that shippers were paying approximately $5 million more annually in shipping charges than the needed revenue figure would suggest. It is important to note that non-compulsory pilotage did not significantly change the disparity between projected and collected revenues. Even though the three pilot associations generated in excess of $3 million for providing non-compulsory service, once we removed the bridge hours for those efforts, the revenues still revealed a $5 million difference.
With this new information, the Coast Guard decided that there was an urgent need to address the extra revenues being brought in by the weighting factors in the 2017 ratemaking. To that end, we issued an SNPRM to address the weighting factors and to propose a modification to the methodology. Our intention, as stated in the SNPRM, is to establish a methodology that aligns projected revenues with actual collections.
In the SNPRM, we proposed a two-step process for accounting for the fees generated by the weighting factors. First, in a step we proposed to designate Step 8, we would calculate the average actual weighting factor in each area by using a weighted average of each class of vessels. We would create a rolling multi-year average of that number beginning with 2014, the year the weighting factors were set to current levels. Then, in Step 9, we would divide the initial base rate for each area, calculated in Step 7, by the weighting factor derived in Step 8, to produce a final shipping rate. This would have the effect of incorporating the additional revenues brought in by the weighting factors into the revenue model used to set rates. As expected, this led to significant reductions in pilotage fees, between the NPRM and SNPRM, across all three districts, as expressed in the table below.
We solicited comments on this revision of methodology, and received an additional nine comment letters on this issue, which are addressed below. Several commenters expressed concern that pilot salaries on the Great Lakes were already too low, and that by incorporating the weighting factors into the revenue analysis, we would jeopardize safety on the Great Lakes as more pilots would leave the system. We respectfully disagree with this analysis. As explained in great detail in the NPRM and this final rule, we have significantly raised pilot compensation in recent years. In 2016, we raised target pilot compensation to $326,114 annually. Despite proposing no change in the 2017 NPRM, we have agreed with commenters who argued that this should be increased by inflation, to a total of $332,963. For the reasons described above, we believe this salary has been shown to dramatically reduce the recruitment and retention problems the Great Lakes pilots experienced in the past. Incorporating the revenue generated by the weighting factors into our analysis allows the Coast Guard to set a pilotage rate that achieves that outcome.
Several commenters made the argument that the Coast Guard's analysis was procedurally defective as a matter of law due to the way we undertook them. These commenters suggested that the Coast Guard used unaudited revenue figures to arrive at the revised analysis in the SNPRM, and that the use of those figures violated the requirement in 46 CFR 404.1(b), which states that annual reviews of pilotage association expenses and revenue will be based on audited data, and that data from completed reviews will be used in ratemaking.
We disagree with the commenters, and believe that they have fundamentally misinterpreted how the Coast Guard arrived at the SNPRM's proposal to adjust weighting factors. As described above, the Coast Guard's analysis of the weighting factors was not the result of the over-generation of revenue by the pilot associations. Rather, we were spurred to examine them by the commenters' logical arguments that the weighting factor produces revenue that goes to the pilot associations, and that by not accounting for that revenue, our ratemaking model was flawed. Mathematical logic suggested that if the weighting factors added, on average, 28 percent to the total fees collected that were not accounted for in the ratemaking model, then the pilot associations would be collecting 28 percent more revenues than would be expected given the amount of traffic measured.
We are aware that the commenters had made this argument in past years, but we had not accepted it. What was different this year is that it was the first year where the pilotage rates had been set under the new ratemaking model, adopted in the 2016 final rule. In previous years, where the old ratemaking model was used, data had always shown that actual revenues fell short of anticipated revenues. However, for the first time in 2017 there was data—the preliminary 2016 revenue numbers—that could be used to determine a rough estimate of the magnitude of any revenue surplus. When we compared the preliminary revenue numbers from 2016 to see if they bore out this hypothesis, we found that the numbers were similar. We are cognizant that traffic on the Great Lakes experienced a sharp rise in 2016, and that there would be a commensurate increase in revenues, but as expected, the increase in revenues far outpaced the increase in traffic.
We noted, however, that there were still some discrepancies in the figures. While the mathematics of the weighting factor would indicate that revenues would run approximately 28 percent higher, the revenue figures showed slightly lower numbers. We requested comments on this discrepancy in the SNPRM, but did not receive comments that would explain or correct it. Whatever the cause, we did not base the weighting factor reduction proposed in the SNPRM on those unaudited numbers. Doing so would have resulted in a slightly lower reduction than what was proposed, but on the actual calculated average of the billed weighting factors. We did not base the reduction on the preliminary, unaudited revenues provided by the pilot associations precisely because they were preliminary and unaudited.
Given the comments received, the Coast Guard does not see any reason to deviate from the weighting factors analysis in this final rule. We used the same multi-year rolling average standard for this calculation as we used for historic pilotage demand. Since the current weighting factors came into place in 2014, we used the data between 2014 and 2016 and will expand this data set until we reach our 10-year goal. They are calculated as follows:
In this penultimate step, we calculate the revised rate by incorporating the average weighting factor into the initial rate. The revised rate is calculated as follows:
Section 401.10, often known as “Director's discretion,” allows the Coast Guard to adjust rates to ensure they meet the goal of providing safe and reliable pilotage. In the NPRM, we did not propose to use this discretion in our ratemaking, and we are not using it in this ratemaking. While we received comments suggesting we add language limiting the use of our discretion, we do not feel such language is necessary or appropriate to include in this final rule as the current methodology provides a fair and transparent means to meet the goals outlined in 46 CFR 404.1(a).
After the pilotage rates have been determined, the Coast Guard can authorize the pilot associations to impose a surcharge. In the NPRM, we proposed a 5 percent surcharge for District Two and a 15 percent surcharge for District Three to cover training expenses for nine applicant pilots. We proposed this number based on historical pilot costs, stipends, per diems, and training costs, which are approximately $150,000 per pilot per shipping season. We continue to find that allowing associations to recoup necessary and reasonable training expenses, both to help achieve a full complement of needed pilots and to ensure skill maintenance and development for current pilots, will facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. Thus we are imposing a necessary and reasonable temporary surcharge, as authorized by 46 CFR 401.401. Based upon our records and communications with the various pilot associations, for 2017, we anticipate that there will be two applicant pilots in District Two, and seven applicant pilots in District Three.
We received one comment on this subject, stating that the surcharge adjustment of $150,000 was not enough for District Two, and that the amount for that district should be set instead at $250,000 to properly recover costs.
Based on historic pilot costs, the stipend, per diem, and training costs, we continue to believe that the total costs for each applicant pilot are approximately $150,000 per shipping season. Thus, we estimate that the training expenses that each association will incur will be approximately $300,000 in District Two and $1,050,000 in District Three. Table 14 derives the proposed percentage surcharge for each district by comparing this estimate to each district's projected needed revenue.
We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
We developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.
Table 15 summarizes the regulatory changes that are expected to have no costs, and any qualitative benefits associated with them. The table also includes changes that affect portions of the methodology for calculating the base pilotage rates.
Table 16 summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of the regulatory requirements that are expected to have associated costs as a result of the rate change.
The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on the Great Lakes annually. See Sections II and III of this preamble for detailed discussions of the Coast Guard's legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking. Based on our annual review for this rulemaking, we are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2017 shipping season to generate sufficient revenues for each district to reimburse their necessary and reasonable operating expenses, fairly compensate trained and rested pilots, and provide an appropriate working capital fund to use for improvements. The rate changes in this rule will lead to an increase in the cost per unit of service to shippers in all three districts, and result in an estimated annual cost increase to shippers.
In addition to the increase in payments that would be incurred by shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of the rate changes, we propose authorizing a temporary surcharge to allow the pilotage associations to recover training expenses that would be incurred in 2017. For 2017, we anticipate that there
The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose new base pilotage rates and surcharges for training. The last full ratemaking was concluded in 2016. Table 17 summarizes the changes in the RA from the NPRM to the final rule. These changes were the result of public comments received after publication of the NPRM and SNPRM.
The shippers affected by these rate changes are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on routes within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels. U.S.-flagged vessels not operating on register and Canadian “lakers,” which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not required to have pilots by 46 U.S.C. 9302. However, these U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose to have a pilot.
We used 2013 through 2015 billing information from the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System (GLPMS) to estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. The GLPMS tracks data related to managing and coordinating the dispatch of pilots on the Great Lakes and billing in accordance with the services. Using that period, we found that a total of 407 unique vessels used pilotage services over the years 2013 through 2015. These vessels had a pilot dispatched to the vessel and billing information was recorded in the GLPMS. The number of invoices per vessel ranged from a minimum of 1 invoice per year to a maximum of 65 invoices per year. Of these vessels, 383 were foreign-flagged vessels and 24 were U.S.-flagged. The U.S.-flagged vessels were not operating on register and are not required to have a pilot per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily choose to have a pilot. U.S.-flagged vessels may opt to have a pilot for varying reasons such as unfamiliarity with designated waters and ports, or for insurance purposes.
Vessel traffic is affected by numerous factors and varies from year to year. Therefore, rather than the total number of vessels over the time period, an average of the unique vessels using pilotage services from 2013 through 2015 is the best representation of vessels estimated to be affected by this rule's rate. From 2013 through 2015, an average of 230 vessels used pilotage services annually.
The rate changes would generate costs on industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. We calculate the cost in two ways in this RA, as the total cost to shippers and as a percentage of vessel operating costs.
We estimate the effect of the rate changes on shippers by comparing the total projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2016 with the total projected revenues to cover costs in 2017, including any temporary surcharges authorized by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard sets pilotage rates so that the pilot associations receive enough revenue to cover their necessary and reasonable expenses. The shippers pay these rates when they have a pilot as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302, or when U.S.-flagged vessels not operating on register voluntarily choose to have a pilot. Therefore, the aggregate payments of the shippers to the pilot associations are equal to the projected necessary revenues for the pilot associations. The revenues each year represent the total costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services, and the change in the revenues from the previous year is the additional cost to shippers from this rulemaking.
The effect of the rate changes on shippers is estimated from the district pilotage projected revenues and the surcharges described in this preamble. We estimate that for the 2017 shipping season, the projected revenue needed for all three districts is $20,976,381. Temporary surcharges on traffic in District Two and District Three would be applied for the duration of the 2017 season in order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses incurred for applicant pilots. We estimate that the pilotage associations require an additional $300,000 and $1,050,000 in revenue for applicant training expenses in Districts Two and Three, respectively. This is an additional cost to shippers of $1,350,000 during the 2017 shipping season. Adding the projected revenue to the surcharges, we estimate the pilotage associations' total projected needed revenue for 2017 would be $22,326,381. The 2017 projected revenues for the districts are from table 9 of this preamble. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this rule, we compare the 2017 total projected revenues to the 2016 projected revenues. In the 2016 rulemaking,
The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2016 and the projected revenue in 2017 is the annual change in payments from shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change imposed by this rule. The effect of the rate change in this rule on shippers varies by area and district. The rate changes, after taking into account the increase in pilotage rates and the addition of temporary surcharges, would lead to affected shippers operating in District One, District Two, and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $1,304,074, $1,003,850, and $914,779, respectively, from the previous year. The overall adjustment in payments would be an increase in payments by shippers of $3,222,703 across all three districts (a 17 percent increase over 2016, including surcharges). Because the Coast Guard must review and prescribe rates for Great Lakes Pilotage annually, the effects are estimated as single year costs rather than annualized over a 10-year period.
Table 19 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2016 to 2017.
To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on the foreign vessels affected by the rate adjustment, we looked at the pilotage costs as a percentage of a vessel's costs for an entire voyage. The part of the trip on the Great Lakes using a pilot is only a portion of the whole trip. The affected vessels are often traveling from a foreign port, and the days without a pilot on the total trip often exceed the days a pilot is needed.
To estimate this impact, we used 2013 through 2015 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's Ship Arrival Notification System and pilotage billing data from the GLPMS. A random sample of 50 arrivals was taken from GLPMS data. To estimate the impact of pilotage costs on the costs of an entire trip, we estimated the length of each one-way trip. We used the vessel name and the date of the arrival to find the last port of call before entering the Great Lakes system. The date of the departure from this port was used as the start date of the trip. To find the end date of the trip we used GLPMS data to find all the pilotage charges associated with this vessel during this trip in the Great Lakes system. The last pilotage charge before beginning the trip to exit the system was used as the end date of the one-way trip. We estimated the total operating cost by multiplying the number of days for each trip by the 2015 average daily operating cost and added this to the total pilotage costs from GLPMS for each trip. In 2015 the average daily operating costs, excluding fixed costs, for Great Lakes bulkers and tankers ranged roughly from $5,191 to $7,879.
We also estimated the impact of the rate increase in this rule. We took the same 50 trips and updated the pilotage costs to the 2017 rates, an average increase of 20 percent, excluding surcharges. With this rule's rates for 2017, pilotage costs are estimated to account for 19.6 percent of total operating costs, or a 2.7 percentage point increase
This rule allows the Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes will promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by ensuring rates cover an association's operating expenses; provide fair pilot compensation, adequate training, and sufficient rest periods for pilots; and ensures the association makes enough money to fund future improvements. The rate changes will also help recruit and retain pilots, which will ensure a sufficient number of pilots to meet peak shipping demand, which would help reduce delays caused by pilot shortages.
The amendment of the cancellation charge in § 401.120(b) will prevent confusion and help ensure that it explicitly states that the minimum charge for a cancellation is 4 hours. The limitation to the surcharge regulation in § 401.401 would prevent excess amounts from being recouped via the following year's rule. The changes to § 404.104 will promote target compensation stability and rate predictability.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people.
For the rule, we reviewed recent company size and ownership data for the vessels identified in GLPMS and we reviewed business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources such as MANTA
The entities all exceed the SBA's small business standards for small businesses. Further, these U.S. entities operate U.S.-flagged vessels and are not required to have pilots as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302, because they are not engaged in foreign commerce.
In addition to the owners and operators of vessels affected by this rule, there are three U.S. entities affected by the rule that receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilot associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size standards described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees; combined, they have approximately 65 employees. We expect no adverse effect to these entities from this rule because all associations receive enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours and pilots.
We did not find any small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields. We did not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000 people. Based on this analysis, we found this rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, 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.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email
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).
This rule will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This rule will not change the burden in the collection currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish “rates and charges for pilotage services.” (
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This 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.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).
To facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and for good cause, the Director may authorize surcharges on any rate or charge authorized by this subpart. Surcharges must be proposed for prior public comment and may not be authorized for more than 1 year. Once the approved amount has been received, the pilot association is not authorized to collect any additional funds under the surcharge authority and must cease such collections for the remainder of that shipping season.
(a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on—
(1) The St. Lawrence River is $601;
(2) Lake Ontario is $408;
(3) Lake Erie is $429;
(4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is $580;
(5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $218; and
(6) The St. Mary's River is $514.
(b) When an order for a U.S. pilot's service is cancelled, the vessel can be charged for the pilot's reasonable travel expenses for travel that occurred to and from the pilot's base, and the greater of—
(1) Four hours; or
(2) The time of cancellation and the time of the pilot's scheduled arrival, or the pilot's reporting for duty as ordered, whichever is later.
(b) The Saint Lawrence River between Iroquois Lock and the area of Ogdensburg, NY, beginning October 2, 2017;
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
(a) The Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full ratemaking pursuant to § 404.101-404.110 of this part, conducted at least once every 5 years and completed by March 1 of the first year for which the base rates will be in effect. Base rates will be set to meet the goal specified in § 404.1(a) of this part.
(b) Pilotage demand and the base seasonal work standard are based on available and reliable data, as so deemed by the Director, for a multi-year base period. The multi-year period is the 10 most recent full shipping seasons, and the data source is a system approved under 46 CFR 403.300. Where such data are not available or reliable, the Director also may use data, from additional past full shipping seasons or other sources, that the Director determines to be available and reliable.
At least once every 10 years, the Director will set a base target pilot compensation benchmark using the most relevant available non-proprietary information. In years in which a base compensation benchmark is not set, target pilot compensation will be adjusted for inflation using the CPI for the Midwest region or a published predetermined amount. The Director determines each pilotage association's total target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot compensation by the number of pilots projected under § 404.103(d) of this part.
The Director initially calculates base hourly rates by dividing the projected needed revenue from § 404.106 of this part by averages of past hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters, using available and reliable data for a multi-year period set in accordance with § 404.103(b) of this part.
The Director calculates the average weighting factor for each area by computing the 10-year rolling average of weighting factors applied in that area, beginning with the year 2014. If less than 10 years of data are available, the Director calculates the average weighting factor using data from each year beginning with 2014.
The Director calculates revised base rates for each area by dividing the initial base rate (from Step 7) by the average weighting factor (from Step 8) to produce a revised base rate for each area.
The Director reviews the base pilotage rates calculated in § 404.109 of this part to ensure they meet the goal set in § 404.1(a) of this part, and either finalizes them or first makes necessary and reasonable adjustments to them based on requirements of Great Lakes pilotage agreements between the United States and Canada, or other supportable circumstances.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| 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 |