Page Range | 41825-42020 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 42019 - National Preparedness Month, 2017 | |
82 FR 42008 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 41829 - Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: Adjusting Supplemental Assessment on Imports (2017 Amendments) | |
82 FR 41827 - Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin; Modification of Allocation of Assessments | |
82 FR 41914 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA or Notice) for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program Under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516 | |
82 FR 41938 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of Incidental Take Authorizations in Cook Inlet, Alaska | |
82 FR 41941 - Arbitration Panel Decisions Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act | |
82 FR 41883 - Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended | |
82 FR 41867 - Waiver of Passport and Visa Requirements Due to an Unforeseen Emergency | |
82 FR 41935 - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee; Notice of a Meeting | |
82 FR 41937 - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee; Notice of a Meeting | |
82 FR 41939 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Generic Information Collection Request for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 41974 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Annual Adjustment Factors (AAF) Rent Increase Requirement | |
82 FR 41976 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Continuation of Interest Reduction Payments After Refinancing Section 236 Projects | |
82 FR 41976 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Counseling Program-Biennial Agency Performance Review | |
82 FR 41977 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Multifamily Rental Project Closing Documents | |
82 FR 41975 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Technical Processing Requirements for Multifamily Project Mortgage Insurance | |
82 FR 41965 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 41991 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
82 FR 41966 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 41947 - American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
82 FR 41943 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests; Power Authority of the State of New York | |
82 FR 41950 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 41899 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
82 FR 41893 - Safety Zone; Dredging, Shark River, NJ | |
82 FR 41946 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 42000 - Submission for Review: Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection Without Change | |
82 FR 41933 - Certain Tin Mill Products From Japan: Final Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
82 FR 41936 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
82 FR 41950 - Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 41980 - Incidental Take Permit Applications Received To Participate in the American Burying Beetle Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan in Oklahoma | |
82 FR 41949 - EC&R Energy Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41947 - Bullock Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41946 - Bladen Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41945 - CA Flats Solar 130, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41949 - Golden Hills North Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41948 - Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41948 - Shoreham Solar Commons LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41973 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program, (IHP) | |
82 FR 41948 - Nexus Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41945 - Southampton Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 41944 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 41825 - Black Stem Rust; Additions of Rust-Resistant Species and Varieties | |
82 FR 41901 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL | |
82 FR 41891 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sarasota, FL | |
82 FR 41887 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Little River to Savannah River, Beaufort, SC | |
82 FR 41889 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL | |
82 FR 41963 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From the Quantros Patient Safety Center | |
82 FR 41959 - TaxSlayer, LLC; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
82 FR 41951 - Final Guidelines for Evaluating Joint Account Requests | |
82 FR 42010 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Electronic Medical Examination for Visa or Applicant | |
82 FR 41909 - Notice of Decision; Cold Treatment of Grapefruit From Australia | |
82 FR 41982 - Notice of Public Meeting, Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council and Idaho Falls District Recreation Resource Advisory Council, Idaho | |
82 FR 41981 - Notice of Public Meeting, Boise District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho | |
82 FR 41981 - Notice of Public Meeting, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho | |
82 FR 41873 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 3 | |
82 FR 41941 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
82 FR 41963 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 41940 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
82 FR 41951 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
82 FR 41967 - Determination That ENJUVIA (Estrogens, Conjugated Synthetic B) Tablets, 0.625 Milligrams and 1.25 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
82 FR 42015 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Basel II Interagency Supervisory Guidance for the Supervisory Review Process (Pillar 2) | |
82 FR 41885 - Transfers of Certain Property by U.S. Persons to Partnerships With Related Foreign Partners; Correction | |
82 FR 41969 - Pediatric Post-Marketing Pharmacovigilance and Drug Utilization Reviews; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 41985 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 41990 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 41989 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK | |
82 FR 41987 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ | |
82 FR 41984 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Correction | |
82 FR 41983 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, Denver, CO | |
82 FR 41982 - Notice of Inventory Completion: New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ | |
82 FR 41938 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18786-02 | |
82 FR 41950 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10516-The Bank of Georgia, Peachtree City, Georgia | |
82 FR 41993 - Curtis-Strauss LLC: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
82 FR 41961 - Submission for OMB Review; Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form 1444 | |
82 FR 41962 - Submission for OMB Review; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument | |
82 FR 41886 - Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 41973 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 41972 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing | |
82 FR 41970 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Apparatus for Microarray Binding Sensors Having Biological Probe Materials Using Carbon Nanotube Transistors | |
82 FR 41971 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; NCI Cancer Genetics Services Directory Web-Based Application and Update Mailer (National Cancer Institute) | |
82 FR 41942 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act | |
82 FR 42010 - Delegation of Authority | |
82 FR 41927 - National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee Request for Public Comments on the Potential Market Impact of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Materials Plan | |
82 FR 41992 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence | |
82 FR 41994 - Forum | |
82 FR 42003 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of Specified Series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series and Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series Under Rule 14.11(c)(3) | |
82 FR 42008 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 202.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Prohibit Listed Companies From Issuing Material News After the Official Closing Time for the Exchange's Trading Session Until the Earlier of Publication of Such Company's Official Closing Price on the Exchange or Five Minutes After the Official Closing Time | |
82 FR 42000 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(i) | |
82 FR 41925 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017-2019 Business Research and Development Surveys | |
82 FR 41934 - U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 42011 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Community Reinvestment Act Regulations | |
82 FR 42011 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning Russia's Implementation of Its WTO Commitments | |
82 FR 42013 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Disclosure Requirements Associated With Supplementary Leverage Ratio | |
82 FR 41935 - Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination | |
82 FR 41931 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination | |
82 FR 41929 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part | |
82 FR 42014 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Fair Housing Home Loan Data System Regulation | |
82 FR 41927 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
82 FR 41909 - Proposed Posting, Posting, and Deposting of Stockyards | |
82 FR 41913 - Amendment to the Designation of Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection | |
82 FR 41911 - Designation for the Montana Area | |
82 FR 41913 - Opportunity for Designation in the Lincoln, Nebraska, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
82 FR 41911 - Opportunity for Designation in the Memphis, Tennessee, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
82 FR 41912 - Opportunity for Designation in the Jamestown, North Dakota Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
82 FR 41895 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Sources Permits | |
82 FR 41968 - Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format-Content of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Document Using Structured Product Labeling; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
82 FR 41903 - EPA Responses to Certain State Designation Recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Notification of Availability and Public Comment Period | |
82 FR 41878 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
82 FR 41994 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information | |
82 FR 41874 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Rural Housing Service
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
We are amending the black stem rust quarantine and regulations by adding 15 varieties to the list of rust-resistant
This rule will be effective on November 6, 2017, unless we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments on or before October 5, 2017. If we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments, we will publish a document in the
You may submit comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Richard N. Johnson, National Policy Manager, Black Stem Rust, Pest Management, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2109.
Black stem rust is one of the most destructive plant diseases of small grains that is known to exist in the United States. The disease is caused by a fungus (
The black stem rust quarantine and regulations, which are contained in 7 CFR 301.38 through 301.38-8 (referred to below as the regulations), quarantine the conterminous 48 States and the District of Columbia and govern the interstate movement of certain plants of the genera
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The addition of these species is based on recent testing to determine rust resistance conducted by the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) at its Cereal Disease Laboratory in St. Paul, MN. The testing is performed in the following manner: In a greenhouse, the suspect plant or test subject is placed under a screen with a control plant—a known rust-susceptible species of
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse public comment. This rule will be effective, as published in this document, on November 6, 2017, unless we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments on or before October 5, 2017.
Adverse comments are comments that suggest the rule should not be adopted or that suggest the rule should be changed.
If we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments, we will publish a document in the
As discussed above, if we receive no written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments within 30 days of publication of this direct final rule, this direct final rule will become effective 60 days following its publication. We will publish a document in the
This rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. Further, because this rule is waived, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This direct final rule will amend 7 CFR 301.38-2 by adding 15 varieties to the list of rust resistant
The introduction and spread of plant pests can result in damage to crops and losses to the U.S. agricultural sector. For the purpose of this analysis and following the Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, we note that a major segment of entities potentially affected by this rule are classified within the following industries: Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS 111421), and Floriculture Production (NAICS 111422). According to the Census of Agriculture, these two categories, along with Greenhouse production, which makes up the rest of NAICS 1114, included 52,777 farms in 2012, and represented 2.5 percent of all farms in the United States. These entities are considered small by SBA standards if their annual sales are $750,000 or less. Over 87 percent of the farms in these industries had annual sales of less than $500,000.
Barberry plants are not one of the crops tracked by the Census and therefore data on production and number of producers are not available. Nurseries producing barberry plant species and varieties will not be negatively affected. In fact, they will benefit from being able to market the 17 varieties interstate. In addition, the rule does not require any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance measures beyond what is already in place.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Tart Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board) to increase the portion of assessments allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.0065 per pound of tart cherries and decrease the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.001 per pound of tart cherries handled under the marketing order (order). This rule also corrects the allocation numbers from $0.006 per pound for research and promotion activities and $0.0015 per pound for administrative expenses as stated in the proposed rule based on a comment received. The overall assessment rate remains unchanged at $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries. The Board locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of tart cherries operating within the area of production, and one public member. Assessments upon tart cherry handlers are used by the Board to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective September 6, 2017.
Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled, “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, tart cherry handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable tart cherries beginning on October 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the portion of the assessment rate allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.0065 per pound of tart cherries handled and decreases the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.001 per pound of tart cherries handled under the order. This rule also corrects the allocation numbers from $0.006 per pound for research and promotion activities and $0.0015 per pound for administrative expenses as stated in the proposed rule based on a comment received. The overall assessment rate for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods remains unchanged at $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries.
The tart cherry marketing order provides authority for the Tart Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board), with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Board are producers and handlers of tart cherries, and one public member. They are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local areas and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2010-11 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA.
The Board met on September 8, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $2,523,550 and an assessment rate of $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,725,000. The total assessment rate remains unchanged by this action. However, this rule increases the portion of the assessment rate allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to
The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2016-17 fiscal year include $2,045,550 for promotion, $255,000 for personnel, and $106,000 for office expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $1,150,000, $236,000, and $102,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by considering expected shipments of tart cherries and examining the needs of the industry with regard to research and promotion and the authorized reserve. Tart cherry shipments for the 2016-17 year are estimated at 314.7 million pounds, which should provide $2,360,250 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, interest income, and funds from the Board's authorized reserve should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (approximately $894,000) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of no more than approximately one year's operational expenses as stated in § 930.42(a).
The assessment rate will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Board will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's budget for future fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries during the 2015-16 season was approximately $0.347 per pound. With total utilization at 251.1 million pounds, the total 2015-16 crop value is estimated at $87 million. Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of producers (600) yields an estimated average receipt per producer of $145,000. This is well below the SBA threshold for small producers. In 2015, The Food Institute estimated a free on board (f.o.b.) price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make up the majority of processed tart cherries. Multiplying the f.o.b price by total utilization of 251.1 million pounds results in an estimated handler-level tart cherry value of $241 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers (40) yields an estimated average annual handler receipts of $6 million, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the portion of the assessment rate allocated to research and promotion activities from $0.005 to $0.0065 per pound of tart cherries handled and decreases the portion allocated to administrative expenses from $0.0025 to $0.001 per pound of tart cherries handled under the order. This rule also corrects the allocation numbers from $0.006 per pound for research and promotion activities and $0.0015 per pound for administrative expenses as stated in the proposed rule based on a comment received. The overall assessment rate established for the Board for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods remains unchanged at $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries. The quantity of assessable tart cherries for the 2016-17 season is estimated at 314.7 million pounds. Thus, the $0.0075 rate should provide $2,360,250 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, interest income, and funds from the Board's authorized reserve should provide sufficient funds to meet this year's anticipated expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2016-17 year include $2,045,550 for promotion, $255,000 for personnel, and $106,000 for office expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $1,150,000, $236,000, and $102,000, respectively.
This rule shifts the allocation of the assessment rate to increase the portion allocated for research and promotion, while decreasing the portion allocated for administrative costs. This adjustment will allow for expanded research and promotion activities to help market this season's above-average crop, while helping to ensure that funds held in the Board's authorized reserve are consistent with the order's limits on the reserve.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Board considered production history, crop estimates, its financial statements, and the need to both reduce financial reserves and increase its marketing efforts to increase demand for tart cherries. The Board also considered not taking this action but determined that 2016-17 expenditures of $2,523,550 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate and allocation, along with funds from interest income, block grants, and funds from reserves, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2016-17 season could be approximately $0.348 per pound of tart cherries. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could be approximately 2 percent.
This action does not increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the costs may be
The Board's meetings were widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 23, 2016, and September 8, 2016, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
One comment was received from Board staff indicating that the Board minutes stated the recommendation was for assessment allocation of $0.0065 per pound of tart cherries for promotion and $0.001 per pound of tart cherries for administration rather than the $0.006 and $0.0015, respectively, as published in the proposed rule. Accordingly, the allocation numbers were revised based on the comment received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after October 1, 2016, the assessment rate imposed on handlers shall be $0.0075 per pound of tart cherries grown in the production area and utilized in the production of tart cherry products. Included in this rate is $0.0065 per pound of tart cherries to cover the cost of the research and promotion program and $0.001 per pound of tart cherries to cover administrative expenses.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, increasing the value assigned to imported cotton for the purposes of calculating supplemental assessments collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. This amendment is required each year to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products will be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. In addition, AMS is updating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) statistical reporting numbers that were amended since the last assessment adjustment in 2016.
This direct rule is effective November 6, 2017, without further action or notice, unless significant adverse comment is received by October 5, 2017. If significant adverse comment is received, AMS will publish a timely withdrawal of the amendment in the
Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by AMS-CN-17-0003, may be submitted electronically through the
Shethir M. Riva, Director, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) were enacted by Congress under Subtitle G of Title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3909, November 28, 1990). These amendments contained two provisions that authorize changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. These provisions provide for: (1) The assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of refunds to cotton producers. (Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, producers could request assessment refunds.)
As amended, the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) (Order) was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the
This direct final rule would amend the value assigned to imported cotton in the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations (7 CFR 1205.510(b)(2)) that is used to determine the Cotton Research and Promotion assessment on imported cotton and cotton products. The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton.
Section 1205.510(b)(2) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Rules and Regulations provides for assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products is the same. The source for the average price statistic is
The current value of imported cotton as published in 2016 in the
An example of the complete assessment formula and how the figures are obtained is as follows:
One bale is equal to 500 pounds.
One kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds.
One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.
A 500-pound bale equals 226.8 kg. (500 × 0.453597).
$1 per bale assessment equals $0.002000 per pound or $0.2000 cents per pound (1/500) or $0.004409 per kg or $0.4409 cents per kg. (1/226.8).
The 2016 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for Upland cotton is $0.644 per pound or $1.42 per kg. (0.644 × 2.2046).
Five tenths of one percent of the average price equals $0.007101 per kg. (1.42 × 0.005).
The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental assessment $0.007101 per kg., which equals $0.01151 per kg.
The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.011012 per kilogram of imported cotton. The revised assessment in this direct final rule is $0.01151, an increase of $0.000498 per kilogram. This increase reflects the increase in the average weighted price of Upland cotton received by U.S. farmers during the period January through December 2016.
Import Assessment Table in section 1205.510(b)(3) indicates the total assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number that is subject to assessment. This table must be revised each year to reflect changes in supplemental assessment rates and any changes to the HTS numbers. In this direct final rule, AMS is amending the Import Assessment Table.
AMS believes that these amendments are necessary to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products are the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, changes reflected in this rule should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible since it is required by regulation.
As described in this
Also, this direct-final rulemaking furthers the objectives of Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process “promote predictability and reduce uncertainty” and “identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.”
AMS has used the direct rule rulemaking process since 2013 and has not received any adverse comments; however, if AMS does receives significant adverse comment during the comment period, it will publish, in a
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget has waived review of this action. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of the Secretary's ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (importers) as having receipts of no more than $7,500,000. In 2016, an estimated 20,000 importers are subject to the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. Most are considered small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration.
This rule would only affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products and would increase the assessments paid by the importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.011012 per kilogram of imported cotton. The amended assessment would be $0.01151, which was calculated based on the 12-month weighted average of price received by U.S. cotton farmers. Section 1205.510, “Levy of assessments”, provides “The rate of the supplemental assessment on imported cotton will be the same as that levied on cotton produced within the United States.” In addition, section 1205.510 provides that the 12-month weighted average of prices received by U.S. farmers will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton.
Under the Cotton Research and Promotion Program, assessments are used by the Cotton Board to finance research and promotion programs designed to increase consumer demand for Upland cotton in the United States and international markets. In 2015 (the last audited year), producer assessments totaled $36.06 million and importer assessments totaled $39.42 million. According to the Cotton Board, should the volume of cotton products imported into the U.S. remain at the same level in 2017, one could expect an increase of assessments by approximately $1,548,844.
Imported organic cotton and products may be exempt from assessment if eligible under section 1205.519 of the Order.
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) the information collection requirements contained in the regulation to be amended have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093, National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. This rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations proposed herein. This period is deemed appropriate because an amendment is required to adjust the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products to be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, the change in this rule, if adopted, should be implemented as soon as possible.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1205 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(b) * * *
(2) The 12-month average of monthly weighted average prices received by U.S. farmers will be calculated annually. Such weighted average will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton and will be expressed in kilograms. The value of
(3) * * *
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule adopts as final proposed amendments to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) regulations describing the procedures for issuance of a discretionary waiver, on the basis of unforeseen emergency in individual cases, of certain documentary requirements for individuals seeking admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant. The Department of State (DOS) is issuing a parallel final rule amending a similar DOS regulation published in today's edition of the
This rule is effective October 5, 2017.
Joseph O'Donnell, Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, telephone number (202) 344-1691, or by email at
The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, in specified situations, may waive certain documentary requirements (
On March 8, 2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Among other things, the 1996 amendment would have removed certain language from 8 CFR 212.1(g) that precluded DHS from assessing carrier fines under section 273 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1323) when an “unforeseen emergency” waiver had been granted under section 212(d)(4)(A) of the INA and 8 CFR 212.1(g). Section 273 of the INA makes it unlawful for a carrier to bring to the United States any alien who does not have a valid passport and an unexpired visa, if a visa was required under the INA or the regulations issued thereunder, and subjects the carrier to a fine for violating this provision. The 1996 amendment of 8 CFR 212.1(g) would have removed the phrase that a visa and passport “are not required” if legacy INS (now CBP) concluded that the nonimmigrant was unable to present the required documents because of an unforeseen emergency.
The NPRM proposed to reinstate the 1996 amendment by removing the phrase “are not required” so that CBP could assess carrier fines under section 273 of the INA in appropriate cases notwithstanding that an “unforeseen emergency” waiver has been granted under section 212(d)(4)(A) of the Act and 8 CFR 212.1(g).
Further background information is provided in the NPRM. On March 8, 2016, DOS published a parallel NPRM proposing amendment of 22 CFR 41.2(i).
DHS received eleven comments on this rule. Two comments favored the proposed amendments, and two did not. The remaining comments criticized U.S. immigration policy or aspects of the regulation that were unchanged and are outside the scope of this rulemaking. A summary of the relevant issues raised in the comments and CBP's responses are set forth below.
Two commenters said that the proposed regulation did not clearly specify what constitutes an “unforeseen emergency” under 8 CFR 212.1(g). One of these commenters recommended the addition of more details about the criteria for qualifying for the unforeseen emergency waiver. The other commenter requested an explanation of the phrase “unforeseen emergency” and was concerned about the “lack of substantial definitions on key terms.”
The proposed regulation permits the CBP district director
One commenter stated that in now proposing parallel amendments to their respective regulations, CBP and DOS have satisfied the joint action requirement. This same commenter indicated that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the decision in
Another commenter stated that it was unclear how the Government could waive passport/visa requirements and yet retain the ability to fine airline carriers for such transport.
CBP agrees that DHS and DOS have satisfied the joint action requirement under section 212(d)(4)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(4)(A)) by proposing and now issuing parallel regulations.
CBP disagrees that this rule is inconsistent with the decision in
However, in 1996, legacy INS amended 8 CFR 212.1(g) to remove the language that a passport and visa are not required if a nonimmigrant demonstrates an unforeseen emergency.
Therefore, this final rule, which allows CBP to waive passport and/or visa requirements for a nonimmigrant due to an unforeseen emergency yet still retain the authority to fine the carrier for transporting an alien to the United States without proper documentation, is consistent with the relevant BIA precedent and
In fact, the court in
Two commenters expressed the view that the rule would create an economic incentive for carriers to comply with section 273. One commenter stated that unless a carrier would receive more than $4,300 to transport an alien into the United States without proper documentation, the carrier would be disincentivized to provide such transportation due to the possibility of a $4,300 fine under section 273.
Another commenter stated that CBP's ability to assess carrier fines, regardless of whether the undocumented passenger received a waiver, would provide an economic incentive for carriers to adhere to section 273 and dissuade carriers from attempting to determine on their own whether an undocumented passenger would qualify for an unforeseen emergency waiver.
CBP agrees that this rule will incentivize carriers to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to ensure that every alien has the proper documentation prior to arrival in the United States.
After review of the comments and further consideration, DHS adopts as final the proposed amendments published in the
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, the Office of Management and Budget (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. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
In 1996, the legacy INS published a final rule (61 FR 11717) amending 8 CFR 212.1(g) which allowed for the waiver of required passport and visa documents for a nonimmigrant in an unforeseen emergency while still retaining the ability to fine the carrier for transporting an alien to the United States without the required documents. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion in
As such, DHS and DOS are now jointly promulgating final rules to allow CBP to waive the requirement to present entry documents for nonimmigrants under an unforeseen emergency while still retaining the ability to fine the carrier for transporting an alien to the United States without proper entry documentation.
From FY 2010-2016,
CBP currently assesses penalties under this provision against any carriers that transport aliens without proper documents who are inadmissible, including when these aliens qualify for parole. Therefore, CBP will not have to set up a new process to fine carriers as a result of this rule. A penalty under this provision takes CBP approximately 2.5 hours to process. Therefore, on average this rule would take approximately 1,965 hours (2.5 hours per violation * 786 violations per year) a year for CBP to administer.
Currently, carriers are penalized for violations of section 273 inconsistently. When a carrier transports an alien without proper documentation, whether it is penalized depends not on the nature of the carrier's violation, but on whether the alien it transported qualifies for a waiver. CBP believes it is more equitable to penalize carriers who violate section 273 equally. Additionally, CBP believes that the language of 8 CFR 212.1(g), as amended in the final rule, which allows CBP to assess a section 273 penalty when a waiver is granted, provides an economic incentive for carriers to comply with the statutory requirements of section 273. Finally, we received three comments that were supportive of the rule on the basis that the rule would create an economic incentive for carriers to comply with section 273.
For additional analysis on the impacts of this rule on small entities and a discussion of alternatives, see section B, Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
As discussed above, DHS and DOS are finalizing parallel and simultaneous amendments to 8 CFR 212.1(g) and 22 CFR 41.2(i) respectively, that would allow CBP to waive the passport and/or visa requirements for nonimmigrants due to an unforeseen emergency while retaining the authority to impose a maximum penalty of $5,432 on a carrier for transporting an alien to the United States without proper documentation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not specify thresholds for economic significance but instead gives agencies flexibility to determine the appropriate threshold for a particular rule. CBP believes that a maximum penalty of $5,432 may be considered a significant economic impact given the wide range of companies subject to the requirements of this rule and that it is possible that a specific small entity may receive more than one penalty in a year. Therefore, CBP is preparing this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under
It is unlawful under section 273 of the INA for any person or company to transport an alien to the United States (other than from a foreign contiguous territory) who does not have a valid passport and an unexpired visa (if a visa is required). 8 U.S.C. 1323. As such, it is possible that any person or company engaged in the transportation of aliens may be affected by this rule. Below, Table 1 presents data on the industries CBP has identified that could be affected by this rule. While CBP finds that only 19 small entities have violated section 273 from FY 2011 to FY 2016, CBP is unable to certify that a substantial number of small entities will not be affected by the final rule in the future.
In 1996, the legacy INS published a final rule (61 FR 11717) amending 8 CFR 212.1(g). The amended regulation allowed for the waiver of required passport and visa documents for a nonimmigrant in an unforeseen emergency while still retaining the authority to fine the carrier for transporting an alien to the United States without the required documents. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion in
The objective of this regulation is to allow CBP to retain its ability to fine a carrier for transporting an alien to the United States without proper entry documentation in the event it grants the alien a waiver for an unforeseen emergency. In general, nonimmigrant aliens must present an unexpired passport and, if required, a valid unexpired visa in order to be admitted to the United States.
CBP received three comments on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, published with the NPRM. Two of the commenters were supportive of both the rule and the analysis and one commenter was not. The two commenters that were supportive of the rule and the analysis agreed with CBP that this rule would encourage and incentivize carriers to confirm that every alien has the proper documentation prior to arrival in the United States. The one comment we received that was not supportive of the analysis was in favor of alternative 3, which was for CBP to take no regulatory action. We disagree with this comment because this alternative would continue the current inconsistency regarding the assessment of fines when a carrier violates section 273 for transporting an alien without proper documents based on whether the alien qualifies for parole. Under the commenter's proposed alternative, carriers who transport an alien without proper documents would be subject to a fine if the alien qualifies for parole, but would not be subject to a fine if the alien does not qualify for parole. Since CBP wants to eliminate this inconsistency, we did not make any changes to the rule as a result of the comments.
CBP did not receive any comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
It is unlawful under section 273 for any person or company to transport an alien to the United States (other than from a foreign contiguous territory) who does not have a valid passport and an unexpired visa (if a visa is required). As such, it is possible that any person or company engaged in the transportation of aliens may be affected by this rule. Below, Table 1 presents data on the industries that CBP estimates could be affected by this rule. The data include the NAICS codes of an industry, a description of the industry, and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) guidance on what qualifies an entity to be considered small in the respective industry.
To estimate the number of small entities to which the final rule will apply, CBP needs an estimate of the total number of small entities within an industry and the number of these small entities that are, or will be, engaged in the transportation of aliens.
The U.S. Census Bureau (Census) provides estimates of the number of entities within an industry. The Census organizes an industry by various intervals of annual revenue and number of employees.
We therefore, sought an alternative data source to supplement the Census data. Any scheduled airline with a capacity of carrying over 18,000 pounds is required to report employee information to the Department of Transportation.
Although CBP can use the Census and DOT data to provide an estimate of the number of small entities that have the potential to be affected by this rule, CBP cannot use the Census data to determine the number of small entities that are, or will be, engaged in the transportation of aliens within a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The regulation does not include changes to any required reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements. The objective of the rule is to allow CBP in an unforeseen emergency to waive the requirement that a nonimmigrant present proper entry documents in order to be admitted into the United States while retaining the ability to fine the carrier that did not comply with the requirements pertaining to the proper transportation of an alien to the United States. When the nonimmigrant without proper documentation is not admitted, including when he or she is granted parole, CBP already has the authority to fine the carrier that did not comply with the requirements. This rule only affects the carriers transporting aliens for whom CBP waives the document requirement due to an unforeseen emergency. As discussed above, the rule could affect any small entity that transports an alien without proper entry documentation.
CBP has chosen to implement Alternative 1. CBP believes that a penalty mechanism is necessary in order to enforce the statutory prohibition on transporting aliens into the United States without proper documentation. In addition, this rule would end the current inconsistency in the issuance of fines for violations of section 273. CBP believes that the language of 8 CFR 212.1(g), as amended in the final rule, which allows CBP to assess a section 273 penalty when a waiver is granted, provides an economic incentive for carriers to comply with the requirements of section 273. Finally, those who commented on the proposed rule were supportive of the chosen alternative.
Alternative 2 would eliminate the economic impact of the proposed rule on noncompliant small entities. CBP believes that it would also eliminate the economic incentive for carriers to comply with the statutory requirements of section 273 for small entities. Furthermore, 8 CFR 273.5 sets forth the
Alternative 3 would eliminate the economic impact of the proposed rule for all noncompliant carriers, regardless of size. In addition, the current inconsistency in fines for violations of section 273 would continue. Carriers who transport aliens who qualify for parole would be subject to a fine if they do not adhere to the requirements of section 273, but those who transport aliens who qualify for unforeseen emergency waivers would not be subject to a fine.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507) an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The collections of information for this final rule are included in an existing collection for DHS Form I-193 (OMB control number 1651-0107).
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends part 212 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR part 212), as set forth below.
6 U.S.C. 111, 202, 236 and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 8 CFR part 2.
(g)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of September 11, 2017, for the direct final rule that was published in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0089 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8342 or email:
On June 28, 2017 (82 FR 29225), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in part 72 of title 10 of the
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 Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and A340-313 airplanes. This AD was prompted by the discovery of Tartaric Sulfuric Anodizing (TSA)/Chromic Acid Anodizing (CAA) surface treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame holes of certain airplanes. This AD requires inspection of the fuselage bulk cargo door frames at specific locations, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 10, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 10, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; 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 Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and A340-313 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 2016-0102, dated June 1, 2016; corrected June 7, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”); to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes; and A340-313 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In the frame of the certification of the A330 Extended Service Goal exercise, it has been identified that Tartaric Sulfuric Anodising (TSA)/Chromic Acid Anodising (CAA) surface treatment is present in some frame holes, from aeroplane MSN [manufacturer serial number] 0400 and later MSN, following production process modification. On bulk cargo door frames (FR) 67 and FR 69 Right Hand Side, the door fitting attachment holes have this TSA/CAA
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53L012-16 to provide instructions to inspect the fuselage bulk cargo door frames at specific locations.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive non-destructive test (rototest and high-frequency eddy-current (HFEC)) inspection or visual detailed (DET) inspections [to detect cracking] of the affected areas, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
This [EASA] AD is considered an interim measure, and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
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. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.
Lufthansa agrees that reporting inspection results, as proposed in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, is beneficial to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). However, Lufthansa disagrees that reporting should be a hard requirement for operators. Lufthansa does not consider that reporting or non-reporting is an airworthiness concern for the affected aircraft. Lufthansa does not agree with the potential of having to ground an aircraft just because the reporting may be provided later than 30 days after inspection. According to Lufthansa, some layover may, in fact, take more than 30 days to complete; in such cases, the aircraft may not yet be released back into service, and the reporting as proposed could become overdue. Lufthansa considers that because of these circumstances, reporting should be a strong recommendation, but not a requirement.
We find that reporting of inspection results for the affected aircraft is necessary. Reporting allows the manufacturer to collect airworthiness information from operators in order to fully understand the scope of the unsafe condition and to develop a final solution as a terminating action. Reporting is not intended to ground aircraft and is only required after the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD have been completed. We have made no change to this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, 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.
Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53L012-16, Revision 00, dated May 30, 2016, including the following appendices.
• Appendix 1. Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01755_2016, Issue B, dated May 12, 2016.
• Appendix 2. Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01754_2016, Issue B, dated May 12, 2016.
• Appendix 3. Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01772_2016, Issue A, dated May 12, 2016.
• Appendix 4. Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01773_2016, Issue A, dated May 12, 2016.
• Appendix 5. Appendix 4: AOT reporting sheet, undated. (Appendix 5 is incorrectly identified as “Appendix 4” on all pages.
• Appendix 6. Advance Copy of Chapter 53-40-18, ALL_A330_NTM_534018, dated May 18, 2016, of the Airbus A330 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Manual. (“Advance copy” indicates that the identified material will be incorporated into the NDT manual during the next manual revision. The “advanced copy” is intended to provide operators with access to the identified material quickly instead of making them wait several months until the next manual revision is released.)
The service information describes procedures for inspections of the fuselage bulk cargo frames at the door support and latch fittings location; repair instructions; and reporting instructions. 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 96 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 would be
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 10, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the following Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 0400 and higher.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A340-313 airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes.
(6) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of Tartaric Sulfuric Anodizing (TSA)/Chromic Acid Anodizing (CAA) surface treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame holes of airplanes with MSNs 0400 and higher. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the bulk cargo door frames, caused by TSA/CAA surface treatment in certain bulk cargo door frame holes. Cracks in the bulk cargo door frames can cause the in-flight loss of a bulk cargo door, damage to the airplane, and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53L012-16, Revision 00, dated May 30, 2016.
(1) Accomplish a rototest inspection to detect cracking of the holes for the bulk cargo door support fittings at fuselage frame (FR) 67 and FR 69, and a high-frequency eddy-current (HFEC) inspection of the holes for the door latch fitting at FR 69.
(2) Accomplish a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking in the bulk cargo door support fittings at FR 67 and FR 69 and the holes for the door latch fitting at FR 69.
At intervals not to exceed the values specified in table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, depending on the previously selected inspection method, repeat the inspection(s) specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the inspections required by this AD for that airplane, unless otherwise specified in repair instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
After the initial inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and after each repetitive inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD: Report inspection findings, both positive and negative, to Airbus in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A53L012-16, Revision 00, dated May 30, 2016.
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0102, dated June 1, 2016; corrected June 7, 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 Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Section, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus A330 Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53L012-16, Revision 00, dated May 30, 2016, including Appendices 1 through 6. Except as described in paragraph (n)(2)(i)(E), none of these appendices are identified as “appendices” to Airbus A330 AOT A53L012-16.
(A) Appendix 1. Airbus Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01755_2016, Issue B, dated May 12, 2016.
(B) Appendix 2. Airbus Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01754_2016, Issue B, dated May 12, 2016.
(C) Appendix 3. Airbus Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01772_2016, Issue A, dated May 12, 2016.
(D) Appendix 4. Airbus Technical Disposition TD_K48_S3_01773_2016, Issue A, dated May 12, 2016.
(E) Appendix 5. Appendix 4: AOT reporting sheet, undated. (Appendix 5 is incorrectly identified as “Appendix 4” on all pages.)
(F) Appendix 6. Advance Copy of Chapter 53-40-18, ALL_A330_NTM_534018, dated May 18, 2016, of the Airbus A330 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Manual.
(“Advance copy” indicates that the identified material will be incorporated into the NDT manual during the next manual revision. The “advanced copy” is intended to provide operators with access to the identified material quickly instead of making them wait several months until the next manual revision is released.)
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housings at certain elevator fittings. This AD requires a one-time detailed inspection and repetitive eddy current inspections of the elevator hinge fitting and bracket assembly, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 10, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 10, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; 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 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 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 AD 2016-0075, dated April 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housing was reported at Stabilizer Station (STA) 4850, affecting the outboard and inboard elevator hinge fittings and attachment fittings; and the horizontal stabilizer elevator linkage. Additionally, excessive misalignment was detected between the elevator hinge fittings and the elevator brackets during further analysis of the reported cases. Furthermore, an occurrence of an elevator hinge fitting crack was reported.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure or detachment of any of the affected structural parts, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S) issued Alert Operator Transmissions (AOT) AOT-CN235-55-0001 Revision 2 and AOT-C295-55-0001 Revision 2 to provide inspection instructions to detect misalignment between the elevator hinge fittings and the elevator brackets. Additionally, Airbus D&S issued AOT-CN235-55-0003 and AOT-C295-55-0003 to provide inspection instructions to detect cracking of elevator hinge fitting and attachment fitting.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection of the elevator hinge fittings and the elevator brackets, repetitive [eddy current] inspections of elevator hinge fittings and attachment fittings, and depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s) [
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.
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued the following Alert Operators Transmissions (AOT).
• Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the elevator hinge fitting and bracket assembly to detect excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housings, and to detect cracks; and corrective actions if necessary.
• Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015. The service
• Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-C295-55-0001, Revision 2, dated April 9, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the elevator hinge fitting and bracket assembly to detect excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housings, and to detect cracks; and corrective actions if necessary.
• Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-C295-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the elevator hinge fitting and bracket assembly, and corrective actions if necessary.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations. 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 14 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this repair:
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 10, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports of excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housings at certain elevator fittings. We are issuing this AD to prevent excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housings, which could lead to failure or detachment of any of the affected structural parts, with a possible result of reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding 600 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, or within 300 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, but not before exceeding 300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane: Do a detailed visual inspection of the elevator hinge fitting and bracket assembly to detect excessive play between bushings and their respective fitting housings, and to detect cracks, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0001, Revision 2, dated April 9, 2015; as applicable.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as defined in the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0001 Revision 2, dated April 9, 2015; as applicable: Before further flight, accomplish applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0001, Revision 2, dated April 9, 2015; as applicable. Where Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0001 Revision 2, dated April 9, 2015; specifies to contact Airbus Defense and Space S.A. for corrective actions, before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.
For Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do an eddy current inspection to detect cracks in the elevator hinge fitting and bracket assembly, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015.
(2) Repeat the eddy current inspection specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD thereafter within the applicable interval specified in table 3 to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
For Model C-295 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) At the later of the times specified in table 5 to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Do an eddy current inspection of the elevator hinge fitting and attachment fitting to detect cracks, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-C295-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015.
(2) Repeat the eddy current inspection specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD thereafter within the applicable interval specified in table 6 to paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of this AD, any crack is detected, as defined in Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015; as applicable: Before further flight, accomplish applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015; as applicable. Where Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015; specifies to contact Airbus Defense and Space S.A. for corrective actions, before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD.
Accomplishing corrective actions, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (i)(2) and (j)(2) of this AD, unless explicitly stated in the approved method of compliance for the corrective action.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2015; or AOT AOT-C295-55-0001, Revision 1, dated May 29, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0075, dated April 19, 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 Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-55-0001, Revision 2, dated March 10, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-CN235-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015.
(iii) Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-C295-55-0001, Revision 2, dated April 9, 2015.
(iv) Airbus Defense and Space S.A. AOT AOT-C295-55-0003, dated December 22, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
(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:
Department of State.
Final rule.
This final rule clarifies procedures for waiver of documentary requirements due to an unforeseen emergency for nonimmigrants seeking admission to the United States.
This rule is effective on October 5, 2017.
Megan B. Herndon, Legislation and Regulations Division, Legal Affairs, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, 600 19th St. NW., Washington, DC 20006 (202) 485-7440.
This rulemaking finalizes procedures in 22 CFR 41.2, regarding waiver of documentary requirements, due to an unforeseen emergency, for nonimmigrants seeking admission to the United States. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published on March 8, 2016, with a 60-day public comment period. 81 FR 12050. Responses to the comments are summarized below.
This rulemaking substantially reinstates a 1999 Department of State regulatory amendment that was invalidated by court order in
The Department of State received six public comments on this rule. One was supportive. Three were criticisms of U.S. immigration policy, and thus outside the scope of this rulemaking.
One commenter requested that the Department provide a “detailed comparison of the rule that was rejected by the Court of Appeals.” The 1994 rule that was reinstated by the Court of Appeals provided that a visa and passport are not required if, prior to the alien's embarkation abroad or upon arrival at a port of entry, the INS concludes that the alien is unable to present the required documents because of an unforeseen emergency. The 1999 rule removed that text and provided that, except in cases cited in other subsections of § 41.2, all nonimmigrants are required to present a valid, unexpired visa and passport upon arrival in the United States. The 1999 rule allowed aliens to apply for a waiver of these requirements (
The commenter also requested an explanation of the term, “officer in charge of the port of entry.” The term “officer in charge of the port of entry” refers to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) district director. Individuals seeking admission into the United States are inspected at ports of entry by CBP officers who determine their admissibility. The CBP officer is responsible for reviewing travel documents, visas, and other credentials. The rule has been amended to refer to the CBP district director instead of the officer in charge or the DHS district director.
Another commenter stated that it was unclear why this rule punishes carriers for transporting individuals without proper documentation, some of whom will be admitted legally into the United States. This rule is an implementation of section 273 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1323, which provides for penalties against carriers that transport an individual without proper documentation. Under the statute, a penalty may be remitted or refunded if the Secretary of Homeland Security is satisfied that,
After consideration of the public comments, the Department of State is clarifying the title of the responsible CBP official but otherwise adopts the proposed rule as final. DHS is finalizing its parallel rule in today's
The Department of State published this rule as an NPRM on March 8, 2016, and provided 60 days for public comment. 81 FR 12050. The rule will be effective 30 days after publication, in accordance with the APA.
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking and certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets.
The Department of State does not assess or collect fines under INA section 273. Neither this rule, nor prior versions of this regulation, address fines against carriers. However, the November 20, 2009, opinion from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit requires joint rulemaking by the Department of State and DHS for the DHS rule to take effect.
The Department of State has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of section 5 of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule does not impose or revise information collections subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Passports and visas, Students.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 41 is amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 8 U.S.C. 1104; 8 U.S.C. 1323; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
(i)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations; correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the temporary regulations (T.D. 9814) that were published in the
These corrections are effective on September 5, 2017 and applicable on January 18, 2017.
Ronald M. Gootzeit, (202) 317-6937 (not a toll-free number).
The temporary regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 721(c) of the Code.
As published, the temporary regulations contain errors that may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(10) * * *
(vi) An allocation of partnership level ordinary income or loss described in § 1.751-1(b)(3).
(d) * * *
(2) * * * The partnership must also attach to its Form 1065 a Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) for each direct or indirect partner that is a related foreign person with respect to the U.S. transferor.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River from mile marker (MM) 641 to MM 648.7. This special local regulation is necessary to provide safety for the participants of the Bridges to Bluffs marine event in Knoxville, TN. This regulation prohibits vessels from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the Tennessee River from MM 641 to MM 648.7 from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP).
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. on September 17, 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 Petty Officer Jonathan Braddy. U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment Nashville at 615-736-5421, email:
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this special local regulation by September 17, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined the need to protect participants during the Bridges to Bluffs marine event on the Tennessee River from mile marker (MM) 641 to MM 648.7. The purpose of this rule is to protect personnel, vessels, and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. on September 17, 2017. The temporary special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of the Tennessee River from MM 641 to MM 648.7. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or persons are permitted to enter the special local regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP. The regulatory text we are establishing appears at the end of this document.
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 special local regulation. The river will be closed to all vessel traffic for a seven hour period from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. from MM 641 to MM 648.7. The Coast Guard will issue written Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the temporary special local regulation that is in place.
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 due to the limited scope and duration of the rule.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation, may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture
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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation that would prohibit entry of vessels on the Tennessee River from MM641 to MM 648.7 for four hours on one day. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Lady's Island Bridge, across the Beaufort River, Mile 536.0 at Beaufort, SC. This modification allows Lady's Island Bridge to remain closed during peak vehicular traffic times. The bridge owner, South Carolina Department of Transportation, requested this action to assist in reducing traffic caused by bridge openings.
This rule is effective October 5, 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 e-mail Ms. Jennifer Zercher at telephone 305-415-6740, email
On May 10, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Little River to Savannah River in the
On August 5th, 2015, a Temporary Deviation, entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Little River to Savannah River,” was published in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Lady's Island Bridge in Beaufort, South Carolina has a vertical clearance of 30 feet at Mean High Water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge schedule can be found in 33 CFR 117.911(f).
On February 17th, 2015, Coast Guard Sector Charleston Waterways Management (WWM) staff observed the Lady's Island Bridge operations between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. During the observation period, the staff discussed potential changes with the Bridge owner, South Carolina Department of Transportation. Additionally, WWM met with the Beaufort County South Carolina traffic manager to discuss bridge opening impacts.
The Coast Guard received eight comments regarding this rule. One person supported this change. One person requested that something should be done about the decibels of the horn on this bridge. This comment has been forwarded to the Bridge Owner to address. Six people are against changing the bridge schedule as being too restrictive to vessel traffic. While the Coast Guard does agree that changing this bridge regulation will be more restrictive to the boating community, based on observations, this change will be a better balance between land and water traffic.
The Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 117.911(f). This regulation would modify timeframes the bridge may remain closed. It would extend the morning closure period, when the bridge is authorized to remain closed, by an additional half hour and the afternoon closure period by an additional hour. It would also set an hourly opening schedule between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. when the Bridge will open on the hour, thereby reducing openings from twice an hour to once an hour during daytime hours, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. This regulation would reduce vehicle backups without unreasonably restricting vessel traffic, thereby balancing the needs of both modes of transportation. No changes to the existing regulation will be implemented during the months of April, May, October and November because higher vessel traffic volumes exist during these time periods. At all other times, this bridge will open on signal.
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 protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge during scheduled openings. Additionally, the modified schedule will not apply during April, May, October, and November when transient season increases vessel traffic.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.”
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no 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
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.
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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(f) The Lady's Island Bridge (Woods Memorial), across the Beaufort River, Mile 536.0 at Beaufort. The draw shall operate as follows:
(1) On Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays:
(i) From 6:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not open to navigation; and,
(ii) Between 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour.
(2) During the months of April, May, October, and November from Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the Lady's Island Bridge (Woods Memorial) shall operate as follows:
(i) From 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not open to navigation; and,
(ii) Between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.
(3) At all other times the draw shall open on signal.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam County, FL. This rule will change the existing open on demand during the day and 24 hour advance notice for a bridge opening during the night, to 24 hour advance notice for an opening at all times.
This rule is effective October 5, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Eddie Lawrence, Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-6946, email
On November 11, 2016 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Operation Regulation; Rice Creek, Putnam County, FL in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
The CSX Railroad Bridge across the Rice Creek, mile 0.8, in Palatka, Putnam County, FL is a swing bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 2 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 30 feet. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.324, the Rice Creek CSX Railroad Swing Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., daily. From 4:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., daily, the bridge shall open with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX.
On May 18th, 2015, CSX Transportation, the bridge owner, requested the Coast Guard consider allowing the CSX Railroad Bridge across Rice Creek to be converted from a movable bridge to a fixed bridge. Their request was made due to the minimal drawbridge openings requested over the past several years. The Coast Guard determined that converting the bridge to a fixed structure was not reasonable to
This change will still allow vessels to pass through the bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation. This rule would implement a 24 hour advance notice to CSX for any openings. This regulatory change is justified based on the limited impact that it will have on vessel traffic as shown by the small number of openings requested over recent years. Emergency vessels and tugs with tows can still request openings at any time.
There were two comments received during the comment period. One comment from the Sheriff's Department concerned not being able to respond to possible emergencies up-river from the bridge. This is mitigated by protocols established between the Sheriff's Department and CSX for emergency openings. The second comment was via letter from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED). The concerns were multifold concerning; security and maintenance. These were all submitted to CSX and answered to the satisfaction of BMWED.
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 protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the continued ability for vessels to transit the bridge given advanced notice and the small amount of vessel traffic transiting the bridge in general.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no 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.
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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The CSX Railroad Swing Bridge, mile 0.8, in Putnam County, FL. shall open with a 24-hour advance notice to CSX at 1-800-232-0142.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule of four bridges across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW); Stickney Point Drawbridge, mile 68.6, Siesta Drive Drawbridge, mile 71.6, Cortez Drawbridge, mile, 87.4, and Anna Maria Drawbridge, mile 89.2, in Sarasota, FL. The request was made to the Coast Guard to change the operation of four drawbridges due to an increase in vehicle traffic throughout these areas at all times of the year. This rulemaking would change the bridges' operating schedules from a three times an hour opening schedule to a twice an hour opening schedule throughout the year.
This rule is effective October 5, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email, Ms. Jennifer Zercher with the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Office; telephone (305) 415-6740, email
On February 13, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sarasota, FL in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
Stickney Point Bridge across the GICW, mile 68.6, at South Sarasota, Florida is a bascule bridge. This drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 18 feet in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the Stickney Point Bridge is required to open on demand.
Siesta Drive Bridge across the GICW, mile 71.6, at Sarasota, Florida is a bascule bridge. This drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 25 feet in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.287(c), the Siesta Drive Bridge is required to open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour. On weekends and Federal holidays, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour.
Cortez (SR 684) Bridge across the GICW, mile 87.4, at Bradenton Beach, Florida is a bascule bridge. This drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.287 (d)(1), the Cortez (SR 684) Bridge is required to open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour. From January 15 to May 15, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee Avenue West) Bridge, mile 89.2, at Bradenton Beach, Florida is a bascule bridge. This drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 24 feet in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.287(d)(2), the Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee Avenue West) Bridge is required to open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour. From January 15 to May 15, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
The Metropolitan Planning Office for Sarasota and Manatee Counties, along with the concurrence of the local mayors, have requested that the Coast Guard consider changing the bridge operating regulations for four bridges in this area to accommodate a year-round increase of vehicular traffic. In the past, increased traffic was only associated with the tourist season. For this reason, the Coast Guard is modifying the four bridge schedules to provide for both the reasonable needs of navigation and those of land transportation. The bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation, concurs with these recommendations.
There were seven comments opposing the final rule. Six comments were against modifying the existing schedule and one comment suggested that even with this modified schedule the bridge will still open too often. Not allowing these bridges to open at least twice an hour would place an undue burden on the marine community. Two of the comments suggested the City/County/State should look into putting in higher level bridges and do a traffic management study, as the problem is traffic control, not the bridge openings.
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 protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridges during the scheduled openings. Vessels that can transit the bridge in the closed position may continue to do so. Public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows may request an opening at any time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no 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.
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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(c)(1) The Stickney Point Bridge, mile 68.6, at South Sarasota, Florida shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
(2) The draw of the Siesta Drive Bridge, mile 71.6, at Sarasota, Florida shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
(d)(1) The draw of the Cortez (SR 684) Bridge, mile 87.4, at Bradenton Beach, Florida shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, the draw need only open on the quarter hour and three quarter hour.
(2) The draw of the Anna Maria (SR 64) (Manatee Avenue West) Bridge, mile 89.2, at Bradenton Beach, Florida shall open on signal, except that from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, the draw need only open on the quarter hour and three quarter hour.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on a portion of Shark River, in Neptune City, NJ, from September 5, 2017, through September 23, 2017, while dredging operations are being conducted in the main navigational channel. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during dredging operations and will restrict vessel traffic from transiting the main navigational channel.
This rule is effective from September 5, 2017 through September 23, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to, type USCG-2017-0843 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Marine Science Technician Second Class Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4889, email
Efforts to dredge the Shark River have been underway for well over a decade. After Superstorm Sandy, the need to dredge the river increased significantly due to sediment deposited by the storm, which impeded navigation within the channel.
Mobile Dredging and Pumping Co. has been awarded the contract to restore the state channels to allow safe passage for recreational and commercial traffic. The sediment will be hydraulically dredged and piped via a secure welded pipeline to the selected dewatering locations.
The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety and protect vessels from the hazards of dredge piping and dredge operations. The rule will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the Shark River while dredging operations are being conducted in the main navigational channel.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the final details for this event were not received by the Coast Guard until August 25, 2017, and the dredging operation will begin September 5, 2017. The safety zone is needed by September 5, 2017, to ensure safe navigation of vessels transiting the Shark River, and it is impracticable to publish an NPRM and consider comments before that date. The dredge and dredge piping must be positioned in the main navigational channel in order for the dredging company to complete the proper dredging of the main navigational channel. Allowing this event to go forward without a safety zone in place would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with dredge piping and dredge operations. Therefore, it is imperative that there is a safety zone restricting traffic in this portion of the Shark River, in Neptune City, NJ.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards are associated with dredge piping and dredge operations from September 5, 2017, through September 23, 2017. The rule is necessary to promote maritime safety and protect vessels from the hazards of dredge piping and dredge operations.
The rule will have an impact to vessels transiting through the Shark River main navigational channel, from latitude 40°10′54.20″ N., longitude 74°1′51.05″ W., bounded by the eastern side of the channel and the western side of the channel, north, to latitude 40°11′6.87″ N., longitude 74° 1′53.54″ W., as vessels will be unable to transit
On September 5, 2017, dredging will begin on a portion of the Shark River in Neptune City, NJ. The COTP Delaware Bay has determined that the hazards associated with dredge piping and dredge operations in the main navigational channel create the need for a safety zone to ensure safety of vessels transiting this portion and for workers engaged in dredging operations.
The safety zone will close the main navigational channel on the Shark River from latitude 40°10′54.20″ N., longitude 74°1′51.05″ W., bounded by the eastern side of the channel and the western side of the channel, north, to latitude 40°11′6.87″ N., longitude 74°1′53.54″ W.; during times of dredging. Dredging of the main navigational channel is scheduled from September 5, 2017, through September 23, 2017, only from 9 a.m. on Mondays through 9 p.m. on Thursdays. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this portion of Shark River during these times is prohibited. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.
The channel will be open from September 5, 2017, through September 23, 2017, from 9 p.m. on Thursdays to 9 a.m. on Mondays. During the periods when the channel is open mariners are urged to transit at their slowest safe speed, with no wake, no meeting or passing of other vessels, and proceed with caution after passing arrangements have been made. Mariners must communicate clearly, and in advance, with the dredge via VHF 6 or 13.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Order 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 limited size of the zone and duration of the safety zone. Although the main navigational channel of this portion of the Shark River will be closed for periods of time throughout the dredging operation, there are designated times where the channel will be open for vessel traffic and traffic will be able transit. Vessels will only be affected 84-hours weekly, from 9 a.m. on Mondays through 9 p.m. on Thursdays, during the month of September 2017. The safety zone and channel closure will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no 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
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering into or moving within the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section while it is subject to enforcement, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or by his designated representative.
(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter or pass through the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay can be contacted at telephone number 215-271-4807 or on Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) Vessels may transit this portion of the Shark River from September 5, 2017, through September 23, 2017, weekly, from 9 p.m. on Thursdays through 9 a.m. on Mondays. During the periods when the channel is open mariners are urged to transit at their slowest safe speed, with no wake, no meeting or passing of other vessels, and proceed with caution after passing arrangements have been made. Mariners must communicate clearly, and in advance, with the dredge via VHF 6 or 13.
(4) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in the following operations: Enforcing laws, servicing aids to navigation and emergency response vessels.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on a revision to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are finalizing a conditional approval of one rule. This rule updates and revises the District's New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution.
This rule is effective on October 5, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0621. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Thien Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120,
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The word or initials
(ii) The initials
(iii) The initials
(iv) The initials or words
(v) The initials
(vi) The word or initials
(vii) The initials
(viii) The initials
(ix) The initials
On June 12, 2017, the EPA proposed a conditional approval of Rule 207 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review; as noted in Table 1) submitted by CARB for incorporation into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP. 82 FR 26883.
Rule 207 satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for a general NSR permit program as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 51.160—51.164, and the statutory and regulatory requirements for a nonattainment NSR permit program for moderate ozone and serious PM
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period we received two comments, one posted anonymously and one from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Copies of each comment letter have been added to the docket for this action and are accessible at
As explained in our proposed action, Rule 207 implements a federal preconstruction permit program for new and modified minor sources of regulated NSR pollutants, and new and modified major sources of regulated NSR pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment. Rule 207 authorizes ICAPCD to issue permits that will contain emission limits, and associated monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, consistent with the EPA's requirements for such programs as set forth in CAA sections 110(a)(2), 172 and 173, and applicable
The EPA's proposed conditional approval of Rule 207 explained our determination that Rule 207 largely satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for an NSR permit program. We noted, however, one area in which Rule 207 was deficient. Specifically, our proposed action noted that Rule 207 does not adequately regulate ammonia as a PM
Our TSD explains that Rule 207, section B, contains various definitions necessary to implement the preconstruction permitting program set forth in the rule. TSD at 4. The TSD states that Rule 207's definition of the term “precursor” explicitly applies to two of four PM
As explained above, our proposed conditional approval of Rule 207 applies the correct standard pertaining to ammonia as a PM
As noted by the commenter, ICAPCD's letter commits to submit a revised Rule 207 that will revise the definitions of the terms “precursor” and “significant”.
We do not agree with the commenter that ICAPCD's commitment to remedy the deficiencies in Rule 207's definitions of “precursor” or “significant” are insufficiently specific or are unenforceable. The EPA's TSD explains that Rule 207's definition of “precursor” fails to include ammonia; therefore, the State and the District reasonably committed to address the deficiency by revising certain definitions.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter that the District's
CBD also provided several suggestions for measures to control and monitor ammonia emissions and concluded that the failure to commit to implement such measures in the area puts the public at risk and deprives the public of its ability to assess compliance with the statute. The EPA disagrees that the State and the District are required to commit to implement specific control measures in order to obtain this conditional approval or that the public will be deprived of the right to review the state revisions to Rule 207 or any permits issued thereunder. When the District proposes revisions to Rule 207 or is actively issuing permits pursuant to that rule, CBD and other parties may comment as part of the public participation processes for those future actions. Thus, the comments are not within the scope of our current action, and the comments do not demonstrate a flaw in the EPA's identification of the Rule 207 deficiency and revisions necessary to address it.
Finally, because the EPA believes that the commitment of the State and the District to remedy the deficiencies identified in Rule 207 to regulate ammonia as a precursor to PM
As authorized by CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA is finalizing conditional approval of Rule 207—New and Modified Stationary Source Review into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP.
Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year after the effective date of the plan approval. In this instance, the enforceable measures that the State must submit are revisions to regulate ammonia as a PM
In today's action we are also making a technical correction to our previous action approving Rule 206 into the ICAPCD portion of the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ICAPCD rules listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these rules generally available electronically through
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 6, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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 enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(56) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Previously approved on November 10, 1980 in paragraph (c)(56)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(490)(i)(A)(
(442) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(490) An amended regulation was submitted on January 21, 2014 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear and catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line gear to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2017 total allowable catch of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective August 30, 2017, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2017.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 1,293 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 1,612 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The 2017 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI is 426 mt as established by final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017).
The Regional Administrator has determined that catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear will not be able to harvest 426 mt of the remaining 2017 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
The harvest specifications for Pacific cod included in the final 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 8905, February 1, 2017) are revised as follows: 107 mt for vessels using jig gear, 0 mt for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear, and 7,571 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from other sectors to catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. Since the fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 29, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes modifying the operating schedule that governs the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 1088.6, Miami, FL and the operating schedule that governs the Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) across Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL. This action will extend the twice an hour opening schedule of the Venetian Causeway Bridges (East and West) across Miami Beach Channel and Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Miami, FL between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., to include weekends and Federal holidays. This action is intended to reduce vehicular traffic caused by these bridges opening on demand on weekends
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before: October 5, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0068 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Eddie Lawrence of the Coast Guard Bridge Branch; telephone 305-415-6946, email
The Venetian Causeway Bridges (East and West) currently open on signal, except that between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays these bridges open twice an hour, pursuant to 33 CFR 117.269 and 33 CFR 117.261. Miami-Dade County, the bridge owner, and the Cities of Miami and Miami Beach have requested a change to the current operating schedule for both bridges to allow for scheduled openings twice an hour to include weekends as there has been an increase in both vehicle traffic and vessel traffic during these times. Bridge logs indicate these bridges open up to four times an hour or more during peak travel times, which results in frequent vehicular traffic disruptions.
The Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) across Miami Beach Channel, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 5 feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 57 feet between fenders.
The Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 1088.6, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 12 feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.261. Under this proposed regulation, the draw of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West), at Miami, Florida would open twice an hour, once on the hour and once on the half-hour, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.269. Under this proposed regulation, the draw of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (East) would open twice an hour, once on the hour and once on the half-hour, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
This change will still allow vessels to pass through the bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation. Emergency vessels and tugs with tows can still request openings at any time.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the continued ability for vessels to transit the bridge during the twice-an-hour opening schedule. Vessels in distress, Public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows must be passed at any time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(nn) Venetian Causeway Bridge (West). The draw of the Venetian Causeway Bridge (West) mile 1088.6, at Miami, Florida will open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, including Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
The draw of the Venetian Causeway bridge (East), at Miami, Florida will open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, including Federal holidays, the draw need only open on the hour and half hour.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of availability and public comment period.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted on our public electronic docket and Internet Web site responses to certain state designation recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017. Please refer to
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003, at
The public may inspect the recommendations from the states and territories, our recent letters notifying the affected states, territories, and tribes of our intended designations, and area-specific technical support information at the following locations:
The information can also be reviewed online at
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Liz Etchells, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone (919) 541-0253, email at
Region I—Leiran Biton, telephone (617) 918-1267, email at
Region II—Ken Fradkin, telephone (212) 637-3702, email at
Region III—Ruth Knapp, telephone (215) 814-2191, email at
Region IV—Twunjala Bradley, telephone (404) 562-9352, email at
Region V—John Summerhays, telephone (312) 886-6067, email at
Region VI—Dayana Medina, telephone (214) 665-7241, email at
Region VII—David Peter, telephone (913) 551-7397, email at
Region VIII—Adam Clark, telephone (303) 312-7104, email at
Region IX—Anita Lee, telephone (415) 972-3958, email at
Region X—John Chi, telephone (206) 553-1185, email at
The following is an outline of the Preamble.
The purpose of this action of availability is to solicit input from interested parties other than states on the EPA's recent responses to the state designation recommendations for the 2010 SO
On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the primary SO
The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407). After promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states, territories, and tribes, as appropriate, of any intended modifications to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.
After invoking a 1-year extension of the deadlines to designate areas, as provided for in section 107 of the Act, the EPA completed an initial round of SO
To meet the first court-ordered deadline, additional areas were designated on June 30, 2016, and November 29, 2016 (collectively referred to as “Round 2”).
On or about August 22, 2017, consistent with section 107(d)(1)(b)(ii) of the CAA, the EPA notified affected states, territories, and tribes of our assessment of their recommended designations for Round 3. While we are in agreement with the recommendations for many areas, some warrant further discussion. We stand ready to assist and hope to resolve any differences regarding the proper designation for these areas within the 120-day process provided by the CAA.
For any areas that we designate nonattainment in our final action, the CAA directs states to develop and submit to the EPA State Implementation Plans (SIPs) within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule, that meet the requirements of sections 172(c) and 191-192 of the CAA and provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 5 years from the effective date of the final rule.
The purpose of this action is to solicit input from interested parties, other than the states, territories, and tribes to which we have sent notification letters, on the EPA's recent responses to the designation recommendations for the 2010 SO
CAA section 107(d) provides a process for air quality designations that
Please refer to the
For some cases, the EPA has indicated to a state or territory that further discussion is needed—
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Provide your input by the comment period deadline identified.
The EPA intends to complete designations for the areas subject to this round no later than December 31, 2017. The EPA is not yet prepared to respond to state and tribal area designation recommendations, or seek public input thereon, for areas that will be designated in Round 4 for the 2010 SO
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at
The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary SO
After the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas of the country as either “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable,” for that NAAQS pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. As part of these Round 3
Regarding statutory definitions and the EPA's interpretations of such, the section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An attainment area is defined by the CAA as any area that meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.
In this action, the EPA defines a nonattainment area as an area that the EPA has determined violates the 2010 SO
These definitions refer to 40 CFR 51.1203(c) and (d), which are part of EPA's Data Requirements Rule. The citation to these CFR sections is in effect a reference to any area that contains a source, generally one emitting more than 2,000 tons per year of SO
This nationwide analytical approach also includes but is not limited to: (1) EPA's interpretations of other terms in the context of Round 3 of the 2010 SO
The EPA notes that CAA section 107(d) provides the agency with discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the definition of a nonattainment area (
Similarly, the EPA's position is that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application of the term “area” to include geographic areas based upon full or partial county boundaries, as may be appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an area “or portions thereof,” and under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains in effect for an area “or portion thereof” until the EPA redesignates it.
By no later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) provides that each state governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the revised SO
In the March 24, 2011, guidance, the EPA stated that the perimeter of a county containing a violating monitor would be the initial presumptive boundary for nonattainment areas, but also stated that the state, tribe and/or the EPA could conduct additional area-specific analyses that could justify establishing either a larger or smaller area. The EPA indicated that the following factors should be considered in an analysis of whether to exclude portions of a county and whether to include additional nearby areas outside the county as part of the designated nonattainment area: (1) Air quality data; (2) emissions-related data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography/topography; and (5) jurisdictional boundaries, as well as other available data. States and tribes may identify and evaluate other relevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular area.
Following entry of the March 2, 2015, court order setting forth the schedule for the EPA to complete SO
On March 8, 2017, the EPA issued a memo to clarify what version of the AERMOD modeling system is the most appropriate for consideration by the agency in the SO
For designations for the SO
These intended designations are based on the EPA's application of the nationwide analytical approach to, and preliminary technical assessment of, the weight of evidence for each area, including but not limited to available air quality monitoring data and air quality modeling results. With respect to air quality monitoring data, the EPA has considered data from at least the most recent 3 calendar years,
For areas of Indian country, there are no violating monitors. The Navajo Nation submitted modeling analyses for the areas around two SO
Information providing the basis for this intended action are provided in a technical support document (TSD)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to amend cold treatment schedule T107-d-3 in the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual to include grapefruit from Australia. In a previous notice, we made available to the public for review and comment a treatment evaluation document that described the treatment schedule and explained why we have determined that it is effective at neutralizing certain target pests on grapefruit from Australia.
The cold treatment schedule T107-d-3 will be authorized for use on grapefruit from Australia beginning September 5, 2017.
Ms. Dorothy C. Wayson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Imports, Regulations and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2036.
The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are intended to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests and noxious weeds into or within the United States. Under the regulations, certain plants, fruits, vegetables, and other articles must be treated before they may be moved into the United States or interstate. The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 (referred to below as the regulations) set out standards for treatments required in 7 CFR parts 301, 318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and other articles.
In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that approved treatment schedules are set out in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.
In accordance with § 305.3(a)(1), we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on November 15, 2016. We received two comments by that date. They were from a State plant protection agency and a foreign agriculture department.
Both commenters were in favor of amending treatment schedule T107-d-3 to include grapefruit from Australia. One commenter stated that it should be emphasized that the treatment is applicable only to fruit coming from areas free of Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly,
We agree with the commenter and note that treatment schedule T107-d-3 is approved for mitigation of Queensland fruit fly only. As treatment for Medfly requires a longer cold treatment to ensure mortality of all immature stages, T107-d-3 will apply only to fruit coming from Medfly-free areas of Australia.
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 305.3(a)(2), we are amending the PPQ Treatment Manual and making available a new version of the manual that reflects this addition to T107-d-3.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
GIPSA is taking several actions to post and depost stockyards under the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). Specifically, we are proposing that 11 stockyards now operating subject to the P&S Act be posted. We are also posting seven stockyards that were identified previously as operating subject to the P&S Act and deposting two stockyards that no longer meet the definition of a stockyard.
GIPSA will consider comments received by October 5, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Donna Ash, Program Analyst, Litigation and Economic Analysis Division at (202) 720-0222 or
GIPSA administers and enforces the P&S Act of 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181
Section 302 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 202) defines the term “stockyard” as follows: “. . . any place, establishment, or facility commonly known as stockyards, conducted, operated, or managed for profit or nonprofit as a public market for livestock producers, feeders, market agencies, and buyers, consisting of pens, or other enclosures, and their appurtenances, in which live cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats are received, held, or kept for sale or shipment in commerce.”
Section 302 (b) of the P&S Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine which stockyards meet this definition, and to notify the owner of the stockyard and the public of that determination by posting a notice in each designated stockyard. Once the Secretary provides notice to the stockyard owner and the public, the stockyard is subject to the provisions of Title III of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 201-203 and 205-217a) until the Secretary deposts the stockyard by public notice. To post a stockyard, we assign the stockyard a facility number, notify the stockyard owner, and send an official posting notice to the stockyard owner to display in a public area of the stockyard. This process is referred to as “posting.” The date of posting is the date that the posting notices are physically displayed at the stockyard. A facility that does not meet the definition of a stockyard is not subject to the P&S Act, and therefore cannot be posted. A posted stockyard can be deposted, which occurs when the facility is no longer used as a stockyard.
We are hereby notifying stockyard owners and the public that the following 11 stockyards meet the definition of a stockyard, and that we propose to designate these stockyards as posted stockyards.
We are also notifying the public that the stockyards listed in the following table meet the P&S Act's definition of a stockyard and that we have posted the stockyards. On October 17, 2016, we published a notice in the
Finally, we are notifying the public that the following stockyards no longer meet the definition of a stockyard and are being deposted. We depost stockyards when the facility can no longer be used as a stockyard. The reasons a facility can no longer be used as a stockyard may include the following: (1) The market agency has moved and the posted facility is abandoned; (2) the facility has been torn down or otherwise destroyed, such as by fire; (3) the facility is dilapidated beyond repair; or (4) the facility has been converted and its function has changed.
7 U.S.C. 202.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.
Notice of designation.
GIPSA is announcing the designation of the Montana Department of Agriculture (Montana) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.
July 1, 2017.
Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.
Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223,
In the April 17, 2017,
The current official agency, Montana, was the only applicant for designation to provide official services in these areas. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.
GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 7(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Montana is qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone number:
Section 7(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)).
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.
Notice of opportunity for designation.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2018. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Midsouth Grain Inspection Service (Midsouth).
Applications and comments must be received by October 5, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Wooden, 816-659-8413 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas is assigned to this official agency.
The entire State of Arkansas.
The entire State of Mississippi, except export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.
Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Haywood, Henderson, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, Shelby, and Tipton Counties.
Bowie and Cass Counties.
The following grain elevator is part of this geographic area assignment. In Cairo Grain Inspection Agency, Inc.'s area: Cargill, Inc., Tiptonville, Lake County, Tennessee.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas is for the period beginning April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2023. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Mark Wooden at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Midsouth official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Mark Wooden at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.
Notice of opportunity for designation.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2018. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Grain Inspection, Inc. (Jamestown).
GIPSA will consider applications and comments received by October 5, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mark Wooden, 816-659-8413 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Minnesota and North Dakota is assigned to this official agency.
Traverse, Grant, Douglas, Todd, Morrison, Mille Lacs, Kanabec, Pine, Big Stone, Stevens, Pope, Stearns, Benton, Isanti, Chisago, Swift, Kandiyohi, Meeker, Wright, Sherburne, Anoka, Lac Qui Parle, and Chippewa Counties.
Bounded on the north by Interstate 94 east to U.S. Route 85; U.S. Route 85 north to State Route 200; State Route 200 east to U.S. Route 83; U.S. Route 83 southeast to State Route 41; State Route 41 north to State Route 200; State Route 200 east to State Route 3; State Route 3 north to the northern Wells County line, the northern Wells and Eddy County lines east; the eastern Eddy County line south to the northern Griggs County line; the northern Griggs county line east to State Route 32; bounded on the east by State Route 32 south to State Route 45; State Route 45 south to State Route 200; State Route 200 west to State Route 1; State Route 1 south to the Soo Railroad line; the Soo Railroad line southeast to Interstate 94; Interstate 94 west to State Route 1; State Route 1 south to the Dickey County line; bounded on the south by the southern Dickey County line west to U.S. Route 281; U.S. Route 281 north to the Lamoure County line; the southern Lamoure County line; the southern Logan County line west to State Route 13; State Route 13 west to U.S. Route 83; U.S. Route 83 south to the Emmons County line; the southern Emmons County line; the southern Sioux County line west State Route 49; State Route 49 north to State Route 21; State Route 21 west to the Burlington-Northern line; the Burlington-Northern line northwest to State Route 22; State Route 22 south to U.S. Route 12; U.S. Route 12 west-northwest to the North Dakota State line; and bounded on the west by the western North Dakota State line north to Interstate 94.
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Minot Grain Inspection, Inc.: Benson Quinn Company, Underwood, McLean County and Falkirk Farmers Elevator, Washburn, McLean County, North Dakota.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Minnesota and North Dakota is for the period beginning April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2023. To apply for designation or to request more
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Jamestown official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Mark Wooden at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice of amendment.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is amending Mid-Iowa Grain Inspection, Inc.'s (Mid-Iowa) geographical territory to include the area previously designated to Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois). Mid-Iowa purchased Central Illinois effective July 1, 2017, and met the requirements specified by regulations issued under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended. The designation of Mid-Iowa is from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020.
July 1, 2017.
Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415 or
Section 7(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under 7 U.S.C. 79(g), designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than 5 years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in 7 U.S.C. 79(f).
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area, in the States of Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota, is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by the northern Winneshiek and Allamakee County lines; bounded on the east by the eastern Allamakee County line; the eastern and southern Clayton County lines; the eastern Buchanan County line; the northern Jones and Jackson County lines; the eastern Jackson and Clinton County lines; southern Clinton County line; the eastern Cedar County line south to State Route 130; bounded on the south by State Route 130 west to State Route 38; State Route 38 south to Interstate 80; Interstate 80 west to U.S. Route 63; and bounded on the west by U.S. Route 63 north to State Route 8; State Route 8 east to State Route 21; State Route 21 north to D38; D38 east to V49; V49 north to Bremer County; the southern Bremer County line; the western Fayette and Winneshiek County lines.
Bounded on the north by State Route 18 east to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 south to State Route 17; State Route 17 east to Livingston County; and the Livingston County line east to State Route 47; bounded on the east by State Route 47 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 west to Pontiac, which intersects with a straight line running north and south through Arrowsmith to the southern McLean County line; the southern McLean County line east to the eastern DeWitt County line; the eastern DeWitt County line; the eastern Macon County line south to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 northeast to the eastern Piatt County line; the eastern Piatt, Moultrie, and Shelby County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Shelby County line; and a straight line running along the southern Montgomery County line west to State Route 16 to a point approximately one mile northeast of Irving; and bounded on the west by a straight line from this point northeast to Stonington on State Route 48; a straight line from Stonington northwest to Elkhart on Interstate 55; a straight line from Elkhart northeast to the west side of Beason on State Route 10; State Route 10 west to the Logan County line; the western Logan County line; the southern Tazewell County line; the western Tazewell County line; the western Peoria County line north to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 southeast to State Route 116; State Route 116 north to State Route 26; and State Route 26 north to State Route 18.
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.: East Lincoln Farmers Grain Co., Lincoln, Logan County, Illinois; Okaw Cooperative, Cadwell, Moultrie County, Illinois; ADM (3 elevators), Farmer City, Dewitt County, Illinois; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County, Illinois.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.
Notice of opportunity for designation.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2018. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Lincoln Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Lincoln).
GIPSA will consider applications and comments received by October 5, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Iowa and Nebraska is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north (in Nebraska) by the northern York, Seward, and Lancaster County lines; the northern Cass County line east to the Missouri River; the Missouri River south to U.S. Route 34; U.S. Route 34 east to Interstate 29; bounded on the east by Interstate 29 south to the Fremont County line; the northern Fremont and Page County lines; the eastern Page County line south to the Iowa-Missouri State line; the Iowa-Missouri State line west to the Missouri River; the Missouri River south-southeast to the Nebraska-Kansas State line; bounded on the south by the Nebraska-Kansas State line west to County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81; bounded on the west by County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81 north to State Highway 8; State Highway 8 east to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 north to the Thayer County line; the northern Thayer County line east; the western Saline County line; the southern and western York County lines.
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Omaha Grain Inspection Service, Inc.: Goode Seed & Grain, McPaul, Fremont County, Iowa; and Haveman Grain, Murray, Cass County, Nebraska.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Iowa and Nebraska is for the period beginning April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2023. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Lincoln official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Housing Service (Agency) announces the timeframes to submit pre-applications to participate in a demonstration program to preserve and revitalize existing Multi-Family Housing (MFH) projects currently financed under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Under this demonstration program, existing Section 515 Rural Rental Housing (RRH) and Sections 514/516 Off-Farm Labor Housing (FLH) projects may be revitalized to preserve the ability of rental projects to provide safe and affordable housing for very-low, low, or moderate-income residents. The goal for projects participating in this program will be to extend their affordable use without displacing tenants because of increased rents. RRH projects include properties designated as senior, family, mixed, congregate and cooperative housing with currently outstanding Section 515 loans. FLH projects include only off-farm properties with currently outstanding Section 514 loans.
This Notice
Pre-applicants selected under this Notice to submit final applications will be funded to the extent an appropriation act provides sufficient funding at the time of final application approval. The amount of funding available will be posted in the Rural Development (RD) Web site,
Pre-application submission deadlines for these opportunities are:
(1) For pre-applications requesting multiple MPR funding tools [including debt deferral of eligible Section 514 or Section 515 loans] complete pre-applications as defined in this Notice must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time December 1, 2017.
(2) For any MPR applicants requesting
The Agency will not consider any pre-application received after the closing deadlines.
Dean Greenwalt,
This Notice will be posted on the RD Web site,
Expenses incurred in applying for this NOSA Notice will be borne by and be at the applicant's sole risk.
The Agency will assign additional points to pre-applications from existing RD-financed projects based in or serving census tracts in persistent poverty counties as well as other areas with special housing needs. This emphasis supports RD's mission of improving the quality of life for Rural Americans and an ongoing commitment to direct resources to those most in need.
A synopsis of this program and the pre-application's universal resource locator will be listed by Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number or at Federal Grants Wire at
The information collection requirements contained in this Notice have received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0570-0190.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31, signed May 5, 2017, authorized USDA to conduct a demonstration program for the preservation and revitalization of the sections 514, 515, and 516 multi-family rental housing properties (off-farm FLH properties) to restructure existing USDA MFH loans expressly to ensure the project has sufficient resources to provide safe and affordable housing for low-income residents and farm laborers under the programs authorized by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484, 1485 and 1486).
This Notice solicits pre-applications from interested borrowers/applicants of MFH projects already participating in the Agency's Section 515 MFH portfolio and Sections 514/516 FLH portfolio for the purpose of revitalization and preservation. Eligibility for MPR funding under this NOSA includes current RD borrowers that have received a loan from the Agency and eligible applicants who are applying to assume ownership and the associated presently outstanding RD loans on RD-financed MFH properties. Eligible applicants for the MPR program include individuals, partnerships or limited partnerships, consumer cooperatives, trusts, State or local public agencies, corporations, limited liability companies, non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, associations, or other entities that own or will be the owner of the project for which an application for transfer of ownership by the Agency is submitted.
Agency regulations for the Section 515 MFH program and the Sections 514/516 FLH program are published at 7 CFR part 3560.
The intent of the MPR demonstration program is to ensure that existing rental projects will continue to deliver decent, safe and sanitary, affordable rental housing for eligible tenants over the remaining term of any Agency loan, or the remaining term of any existing Restrictive-Use Provisions (RUP) or prohibition, whichever ends later.
MPR funds cannot be used to build community rooms, add additional parking areas, playgrounds, or laundry rooms. MPR funds may be used to repair or renovate existing project items identified in the Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and to satisfy accessibility transition and fair housing requirements.
To fulfill an existing need for additional affordable rental housing as documented in a market study and/or another information source acceptable to the Agency, MPR funds may be used to add new units, and/or reconfigure the present units,
All pre-applications will be reviewed by the Agency using the process described in this NOSA and selected applicants will be invited to participate in the MPR demonstration program. Upon written notification to the Agency from the selected applicant of their acceptance to participate, the applicant will engage a qualified independent third-party to conduct a comprehensive Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) acceptable to RD (unless an existing CNA acceptable to the Agency was included as part of the pre-application submission) which should provide a fair and objective review of projected capital needs in any case where the applicant indicates additional MPR tools are also being requested. Applicants determined eligible to receive deferral-only MPR assistance for Exiting Projects and transfers will be processed on a continuous basis as described in this Notice so long as funds remain available. The Agency shall implement any other proposal that may be offered under this Notice through an MPR Conditional Commitment (MPRCC) with the eligible borrower/applicant, which will include all the terms and conditions offered by the Agency.
One of the MPR tools available in this program is debt payment deferral for up to 20 years for presently outstanding Section 514 or Section 515 loans. The cash flow from the deferred RD direct loan principal and interest payment will be deposited to the RD project's reserve account or used as directed by the Agency to help meet the specific project's future physical needs, support new debt or to reduce rents, or as otherwise directed and determined by the Agency to be in the best interests of the tenants and Government.
A. Debt deferral is described as follows:
1.
a. The deferral of such loans will assure the continued feasibility of preserving needed rental units based on criteria described in 7 CFR 3560.57(a)(3), and
b. The new owner, including all principles, does not share any identity of interest (IOI) with the selling entity in any other RD properties not fully compliant with all Agency requirements and conditions for any other outstanding RD indebtedness, or
c. In those cases where the IOI seller, including the principles of the acquiring applicant, are fully compliant on any outstanding RD approved workout agreements.
Any questions on whether or not a loan is eligible for deferral should be directed to the local RD State Office at:
2. All terms and conditions of the deferral will be described in the MPR Debt Deferral Agreement. A balloon payment of principal and accrued interest (deferral balloon) will be due at the end of the deferral period, or upon default pursuant to the terms contained therein. Interest will accrue at the promissory note rate and, if applicable, the subsidy will be applied as set out in the Agency's “
3. At the time of the deferral balloon, RHS intends to use the available servicing tools to preserve any needed projects as affordable rental housing.
B. Other Agency MPR funding tools are as follows:
1.
2.
a. The maximum term for the Zero Percent Loan will not extend beyond the latest maturity date of any existing Section 515 RRH or Section 514 FLH loan term already in place at the time of closing, or the modified maturity date of any current loan being re-amortized.
b. For Section 515 RRH projects, the maximum loan term is 30 years amortized over a maximum term of 50 years.
c. For Sections 514/516 projects, the loan will be amortized over a maximum term of 33 years.
3.
4.
a. Rural Development Section 515 Rehabilitation loan funds for RRH projects;
b. Rural Development Sections 514/516 Off-Farm rehabilitation loan/grant funds for FLH projects;
c. Rural Development Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing (GRRH) program financing;
d. Rural Development Multi-Family Housing Preservation Revolving Loan Funds program;
e. Third-party loans, grants, tax credits and tax-exempt financing;
f. Owner-provided capital contributions in the form of a cash infusion. A cash infusion cannot be a loan; and
g. Excess funds as defined by the then current respective RD program servicing regulations from the project's reserve or operating fund accounts, or donated services provided by the applicant.
5.
If a transfer is part of the MPR transaction, and the transfer includes a seller payment and/or an increase in the allowable Return to Owner (RTO), the transfer must first be underwritten to meet the requirements of 7 CFR 3560.406 to establish the maximum RTO amount RD will recognize for the buyer and seller. When it is in the best interests of the Government and the tenants to meet preservation goals, the transferee may request RD to reconsider the initial transfer authorization and grant use of MPR debt deferral only of all eligible RRH or FLH loans.
Transfers using
a. This Notice will allow transfer transaction applicants to submit a second feasibility scenario using multiple MPR tools in addition to their primary proposal with MPR Deferral only. Applicants may include,
b. An applicant that chooses to include MPR Zero Percent and/or MPR Soft Second loans in their transfer proposal will formally acknowledge that they understand inclusion of those funds in the underwriting constitutes neither an approval nor a commitment of any MPR funds by the Agency. They must also submit a transfer proposal for the transaction consistent with other proposals using other types of currently available financing, so the Agency can determine the feasibility of the transfer using such alternative forms of financing (
c. The Agency will evaluate all transfers applying to participate in the MPR program equally, whether they chose to use MPR tools at underwriting or not. Every transfer application, regardless of the use of MPR tool in the underwriting, applying to participate in the MPR program will be evaluated and selected in accordance to the selection process outlined in this Notice. The MPR funds amount limit [mentioned in b. above] will not apply to transfers approved by the Agency that do not use MPR Zero percent and MPR Soft Second loans in its proposal.
MPR funds will not be used to pay equity on MFH transfers.
d. Prior RD Headquarters concurrence is required for any transfer with equity loan payments, increased RTO, or waivers for unusual transactions that fall outside of the normal transfer transaction principles of 7 CFR 3560.406 or revitalization related policy issues not otherwise addressed.
1. For the purposes of the MPR demonstration program, the Agency will identify transactions in four (4) categories:
i. Exiting Project Deferral Only Transactions: These involve no change in ownership and only defer payments to the final due date authorized by statutory and program regulations unless otherwise modified under the terms of this Notice. This tool is available only to project owners where all Agency mortgages on the property are maturing on or before December 31, 2023.
A CNA will not be required for these transactions unless the RD debt payments are being deferred to allow additional capital repairs and improvements to fund work beyond the scope of the servicing requirement for reserve account use as in servicing the annual operating budget under 7 CFR 3560.306 (g).
Exiting Project deferral only transactions do not require review by the RD Headquarters MPR Loan Review Committee. The RD State Office will submit these transfer requests through its HQ Review Underwriter to the Deputy Administrator, MFH for concurrence.
ii. Simple Transactions: These involve no change in ownership where the borrower is seeking one or more of the available MPR tools to meet the specific project's present and future physical need, support new debt or to reduce rents, or as otherwise directed as determined by the Agency to be in the best interests of the tenants and Government. Simple transactions involve a single project but may include the consolidation of project phases owned by the same entity into one project under 7 CFR 3560.410.
iii. Complex Transactions: These may consist of one or more project transfers within the same market area to a single new owner processed in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.406, with or without a consolidation; or single-owner transactions requiring a subordination agreement because of third-party funds. A complex transaction may involve more than one project but results in only a single project upon closing the transaction. The applicant will submit one pre-application.
A. If a consolidation of existing properties is simultaneously proposed, all projects being consolidated must be submitted on one pre-application and must also be located in the same market area. Market area is defined in 7 CFR 3560.11 as the geographic or locational delineation for a specific project, including outlying areas that will be impacted by the project including the area in which alternative, similar properties effectively compete with the subject property.
B. For a MPR consolidation, all projects must be of the same type, be in a neighborhood or similar area where the properties compete for the same tenants; managed under one management plan and one management agreement; and, in sufficiently close proximity to permit convenient and efficient management of the property.
C. Applicants should discuss proposed consolidations with the Rural Development State Office in the State where the projects are located prior to filing their MPR pre-application to ensure Rural Development concurs with the applicant's market area estimation.
D. Removal of one or more projects from the proposal by either the Agency or the owner does not affect the eligibility of the complex transaction. To be a complex transaction, the Agency assumes only one project remains at the MPR closing.
iv. Portfolio transactions: These include two or more projects with one stay-in owner that will not be consolidated into a single property under 7 CFR 3560.11, or two or more projects with multiple projects located in one State sale transactions to a common purchaser. A stay-in owner is defined as an existing Section 515 or Sections 514/516 borrower who owns two or more properties either as a single ownership entity, or as separate legal entities with at least one common general partner/managing member capable of securing all necessary approvals from other partners, investors, etc. as may be required in the entity's organizational documents for participation in the MPR program prior to closing. Each project in the portfolio will be submitted on a separate pre-application form unless those located in the same market area are being consolidated as defined above. Any projects being consolidated should be listed on the same pre-application form. Each pre-application must have the same portfolio name. If the owner chooses to remove one or more projects from the proposal, at least two projects must remain in order to be classified as a portfolio transaction. At the end of the transaction, the Agency assumes there will be two or more unconsolidated projects remaining. The projects of the stay-in owner or common purchaser must have at least one general partner/managing member in common capable of securing the consent of all other partners or members prior to closing the MPR in accordance with the entity organizational documents.
6. Transactions, other than Exiting Project deferral only MPR assistance, within each category may utilize any or all MPR funding tools described above in paragraph I, “Funding Opportunity Description”. MPR tools available through the MPR demonstration program address preservation and rehabilitation needs identified in the Agency-accepted CNA, including any accessibility transition plans and fair housing requirements not previously satisfied.
7. The total of all liens against the project, with the exception of Agency deferred debt, cannot exceed the Agency-approved security value of the project. All Agency debt, either in first lien position or in a subordinated lien position, must be secured by the project, except deferred debt, which is not included in the Agency's total lien position for computation of the Agency's security value in the MPR program. Payment of any deferred debt will not be required from normal project operations income. Payment of any deferred debt will be required from excess cash generated from project operations after all other secured debts, required reserves and operational costs are satisfied or as directed by the Agency.
8. All exiting RD direct loans with payments being deferred will be reamortized or restructured to the maximum term allowed under the
C. MPR Applicants
Pre-applicants selected under this Notice to submit formal applications will be subsequently referred to as “Applicants”, and will be considered for available funding as described in this Notice subject to the availability of MPR funds or other program funds for which they may be eligible.
D. Exiting Project Applicants
The Agency recognizes that a number of Section 515 and Sections 514/516 properties are financed through mortgages scheduled to mature through calendar year 2023. The Agency will make an MPR debt deferral available to properties with all Agency mortgages maturing on or before December 31, 2023, that are not already being reamortized as part of an RD servicing action to extend the affordable use of the housing and continue its eligibility for Section 521 Rental Assistance. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Notice, MPR pre-applicants applying for a deferral of their eligible mortgage debt and any other MPR tools will be required to meet the continuing eligibility requirements as outlined in “Section III Eligibility Information” of this Notice. Applicants applying solely for deferral of eligible Exiting Projects will only be required to submit the MPR pre-application within the established deadlines set out in the
Pre-applications selected under this Notice that become an Agency approved application may be funded with current or future fiscal year funds subject to the availability of a funding appropriation.
Any pre-applications selected under this Notice, will be considered withdrawn on December 31, 2018, if not approved by the Agency.
Awards under this Notice mean any loan or grant approved and obligated. Awardees receiving loans or grants under the MPR program are subject to 2 CFR 25.200. All Awardees of any nature under this Notice are subject to the applicable requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved USDA Suspension and Debarment, and Drug-Free Workplace Certifications as prescribed under Title 2 CFR parts 417 and 421.
Applicants are advised that the Agency has unfunded applications carried over from prior Notices that will receive priority consideration for funding approval from available fiscal year appropriations based on the terms of those Notices. If fiscal year funds available for the MPR demonstration program are fully committed before funding all remaining eligible pre-applications selected for further processing under this Notice, the Agency may continue to process pre-applications that if approved, may receive conditional commitments subject to the future appropriation and availability of MPR funds.
Applicants are further advised that the Agency anticipates it may not have sufficient funding under this Notice to fund every approved application. If the Agency depletes the available MPR funds before funding every approved application, then every approved application not funded will be incorporated into a funding priority queue. The queue will prioritize approved applications by receipt date and score and it will be maintained by the HQ Review Underwriter Team Leader (Team Leader).
The queue process begins when HQ Review Underwriters email approved applications to the Team Leader, who accumulates the approved applications for placement in the queue throughout the week until the weekly submission deadline of midnight Eastern Time every Thursday. The Team Leader then incorporates the approved applications received through Thursday into the queue no later than the following Tuesday (
In order to maximize the distribution of MPR funds among as many States as possible, the Director, MFH PDLD, may authorize a State with four (4) or less funded applications to be funded ahead of any State with five (5) or more funded applications even when the application from the State with (4) or less funded applications has a later queue date and time than the application from a State with five (5) or more funded applications.
MPR funding tools are only for authorized purposes in the respective RRH and FLH programs in accordance with 7 CFR 3560 unless otherwise determined to be in the best interests of the government. The program will be administered within the resources available to the Agency through Public Law 114-113 and any future appropriations for the preservation and revitalization of Sections 514/516 and Section 515-financed projects. In the event that any provisions of 7 CFR part 3560 conflict with this Notice, the provisions of this Notice will take precedence.
Applicant eligibility requirements. For the purpose of this Notice, “applicant” includes the applying entity (
These eligibility requirements include substantial and verifiable favorable experience and creditworthiness, but do
1. All applicants must meet the following requirements:
a. Be a U.S. citizen or qualified alien(s); a corporation; a State or local public Agency; an Indian tribe as defined in § 3560.11; or a limited liability company (LLC), non-profit organization, consumer cooperative, trust, partnership, or limited partnership in which the principals are U.S. citizens or qualified aliens;
b. Be unable to obtain similar credit elsewhere at rates that would allow for rents within the payment ability of eligible residents;
c. Possess the legal and financial capacity to carry out the obligations required for the loan or grant;
d. Be able to maintain, manage, and operate the housing for its intended purpose and in accordance with all Agency requirements as demonstrated with its compliance with Agency servicing requirements. Non-compliance with Agency servicing requirements with other projects owned and/or managed by natural person(s) managing/controlling (whether directly or indirectly through other entities) the borrowing entity, will render the applicant ineligible to participate in the MPR program nationwide until the non-compliance event(s) is/are remedied;
e. With the exception of applicants who are a non-profit organization, housing cooperative or public body, be able to provide the borrower contribution from their own resources (this contribution must be in the form of cash, or land, or a combination thereof);
f. Not be suspended, debarred, or excluded based on the “List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs.” The list is available to Federal agencies from the U.S. Government Printing Office. Non-Federal parties should contact the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800;
g. Not be delinquent on Federal debt or a Federal judgment debtor, with the exception of those debtors described in 7 CFR 3560.55 (b); and
h. Be in compliance with the requirements of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) as applied by USDA.
Additional requirement for applicants with prior debt. If an applicant, the managing general partner, managing member, or key principal in the organization decision-making and operational authority that may control the applicant and any sub-applicant entities involved including the actual natural person(s) of any sub-entity (
a. The applicant must be in compliance with any existing loan or grant agreements and with all legal and regulatory requirements or must have an Agency approved workout agreement and be in compliance with the provisions of the workout agreement. The Agency may require that applicants with monetary or non-monetary deficiencies be in compliance with an Agency-approved workout agreement for a minimum of six (6) consecutive months before becoming eligible for further assistance.
b. The applicant must be in compliance with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and all other applicable civil rights laws.
Additional requirements for non-profit organizations. In addition to the eligibility requirements of paragraphs above, non-profit organizations must meet the following criteria:
a. The applicant must have received a tax-exempt ruling from the IRS designating the applicant as a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization.
b. The applicant must have in its charter the provision of affordable housing.
c. No part of the applicant's earnings may benefit any of its members, founders, or contributors.
d. The applicant must be legally organized under State and local law.
e. In the case of off-farm labor housing loans and grants, non-profit organizations must be “broad-based” non-profit organizations (refer to § 3560.555(a)(1)).
Additional requirements for limited partnerships. In addition to the applicant eligibility requirements aforementioned, limited partnership loan applicants must meet the following criteria:
a. The general partners must be able to meet the borrower contribution requirements if the partnership is not able to do so at the time of loan request.
b. The general partners must maintain a minimum 5 percent financial interest in the residuals or refinancing proceeds in accordance with the partnership organizational documents.
c. The partnership must agree that new general partners can be brought into the organization only with the prior written consent of the Agency.
Additional requirements for Limited Liability Companies (LLCs). In addition to the applicant eligibility requirements aforementioned, LLC loan applicants must meet the following criteria:
a. One member who holds at least a five (5) percent financial interest in the LLC must be designated the authorized agent to act on the LLC's behalf to bind the LLC and carry out the management functions of the LLC.
b. No new members may be brought into the organization without prior consent of the Agency.
c. The members must commit to meet the equity contribution requirements if the LLC is not able to do so at the time of loan request.
1. This Notice requires selected applicants to make the required equity contribution as outlined in 3560.63(c) for any new Section 515 loan offered as part of the MPR. Applicant funds committed under Section I, may be used to fund all or a portion of the required RD equity contribution for the subsequent direct program loan. Loan applicants will not receive any increased equity value attributed to the property since the initial RD loan closing and will not receive additional RTO for this contribution.
2. Eligibility also includes the continued ability of the borrower/applicant to provide acceptable management and will include an evaluation of any current outstanding deficiencies. As defined in Section V of this Notice, any outstanding violations or extended open operational findings associated with the applicant/borrower or any affiliated entity having an identity of interest (IOI) with the project ownership and which are recorded in the Agency's automated Multi-Family Information System (MFIS), will preclude further processing of any MPR applications unless there is a current, approved workout plan in place and the plan has been satisfactorily followed for a minimum of six (6) consecutive months, as determined by the Agency.
3. For Section 515 RRH projects, the average physical vacancy rate for the 12 months preceding this Notice's pre-application submission date can be no more than 10 percent for projects consisting of 16 or more revenue units and no more than 15 percent for projects less than 16 revenue units unless an
4. For Sections 514/516 FLH projects, rather than an average physical vacancy rate as noted in section (ii) above, a positive cash flow for the previous full three (3) years of operation is required unless an exception applies as described section III(A)(3), above for projects with an approved work out plan.
5. MPR tools will only be awarded if the pre-applicant will meet applicable program ownership requirements, including the ability to operate the project after the transaction is completed. In the event of a MFH transfer, the proposed transferee must submit evidence of site control together with a copy of the borrower's written request signed by both the proposed buyer and the seller describing the general terms of the proposed transfer. Evidence may include a Purchase Agreement, Letter of Intent, or other documentation acceptable to the Agency.
6. An Agency approved CNA (for guidance refer to
7. Initial eligibility for any processing will be determined as of the date of the pre-application filing deadline. The Agency reserves the right to discontinue processing any application due to material changes in the applicant's status occurring at any time after the initial eligibility determination.
8. All selected applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) prior to submitting an application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200. In addition, all entity applicants must maintain registration in the CCR database at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency as required by OMB in 2 CFR 25.200 and 25.305. Similarly, all recipients of Federal Financial Assistance are required to report information about first-tier, sub-awards and executive compensation, in accordance with 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).
A. The general steps of the MPR application process are as follows:
1.
If you receive a loan or grant award under this Notice, USDA reserves the right to post all information submitted as part of the pre-application/application package, which is not protected under the Privacy Act, on a public Web site with free and open access to any member of the public.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. If the Agency determines the transaction is financially feasible, it may be able to offer the borrower a revitalization proposal, subject to available funding. This will include a requirement that the borrower execute and record, an Agency-approved Restrictive-Use Covenant (RUC) for a period equivalent to the longest term of any MPR funding being authorized, the remaining term of any non-deferred existing loans, or the remaining term of any existing RUPs, whichever ends later. The proposal will be established in the offer presented to the applicant as part of a MPR Conditional Commitment (MPRCC) using a format determined by RD.
7.
8.
B. The MPR application submission and scoring will be completed in two phases in order to avoid unnecessary effort and expense on the part of applicants. The two phases are as follows:
1. Phase I—The first phase is the pre-application process. Applicants, including applicants seeking deferral only, must submit a complete pre-application by the deadline listed under the
a. For all transfers of ownership, evidence of site control.
b. Current market data (defined as no more than 6 months old at time of filing) for any project not meeting the occupancy standards cited in sections III (2) and III (3) above. The market data must demonstrate there is need for the project evidenced by waiting lists and a housing shortage confirmed by local housing agencies and realtors and accepted by the Agency. The market data must show a clear need and demand for the project once an MPR transaction is completed. The results of the survey of existing or proposed rental or labor housing, including complex name, location, number of units, bedroom mix, family or elderly type, year built, and rent charges must be provided, as well as the existing vacancy rate of all available rental units in the community, their waiting lists and amenities, and the availability of RA or other subsidies. The Agency will determine whether or not the proposal has market feasibility based on the data provided by the applicant. Any costs associated with the completion of the market data is NOT an eligible program project expense.
c. For a property that has been sold to a non-profit entity under the Sale to Non-Profit process defined in 3560, Subpart N, a copy of the recorded Deed.
Unless an exception under this section applies, the requirements stated in Section III A(1) and (2) of this Notice must be met.
All documents must be received on or before the pre-application closing deadline to be considered complete and timely filed. Pre-applications that do not include valid and unexpired evidence of site control for transfer proposals, or current market data for projects that do not meet the occupancy standards of Section III A(1) and (2) of this Notice, will be considered incomplete and will be returned to the applicant without further action or appeal rights.
2. Phase II—The second phase of the application process will be completed by the Agency based on Agency records and the pre-application information submitted. All complete, eligible, and timely-filed pre-applications will be scored and ranked based on points received during the application process. Further, the Agency will categorize each MPR proposal as being an Exiting Project Deferral, Simple, Complex, or Portfolio transaction based on the information submitted on the pre-application, in accordance with the category descriptions provided in Section I of this Notice.
All pre-applications will only be submitted electronically. Pre-applications received electronically will be recorded by the actual date and time received in the MPR Web site and used in ranking the pre-application as discussed under section I A 3.
Assistance with filing electronic pre-applications can be obtained from any Rural Development State Office. USDA Rural Development MFH State Office contacts can be found at
The pre-application is in Adobe Acrobat format and will be completed as a fillable form online. The form contains
Pre-applications may be downloaded from the Agency's Web site at
A. Pre-application ranking points will be based on information provided during the submission process, and in Agency records. Only timely, complete pre-applications requesting both debt deferral of eligible Section 514 or Section 515 loans
1.
a. Evidence of a commitment of at least $3,000 to $5,000 per unit per project from other sources—10 points, or
b. Evidence of a commitment greater than $5,000 to $10,000 per unit per project from other sources—15 points.
c. Evidence of a commitment greater than $10,000 to $15,000 per unit per project from other sources—20 points.
d. Evidence of a commitment greater than $15,000 per unit per project from other sources—30 points.
2.
a. Evidence of a contribution of at least $500 to $650 per unit—10 points, or
b. Evidence of a contribution greater than $651to $900 per unit—20 points, or
c. Evidence of a contribution greater than $901 per unit—30 points.
3.
The minimum contribution required to receive these points is $1,000 per unit per project, and will be required to be deposited in the project reserve account or supervised/construction account as directed by Rural Development prior to closing. An increased RTO may be allowed for funds committed in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.406(d) (14)(ii). The maximum points awarded for this criterion is 15 points. These points will be awarded in the following manner:
a. Evidence of a contribution of at least $1,000 to $2,500 per unit—5 points, or
b. Evidence of a contribution greater than $2,500 to $5,000 per unit—10 points, or
c. Evidence of a contribution greater than $5,000 per unit—15 points.
4.
5.
6. Points may be awarded to projects that have been adversely impacted by an event that, as determined by the Agency, directly and exclusively results from the occurrence of natural causes that could not have been prevented by the exercise of foresight or caution over the previous 24 months, or other unavoidable accident causing physical property damage or failure that is not reimbursable by property, casualty or liability insurance or any other form of third-party compensation, such as disaster loans and grants from other agencies. 25 points
7.
a. Projects with initial operational dates prior to December 21, 1979—30 points.
b. Projects with initial operational dates on or after December 21, 1979, but before December 15, 1989—20 points.
c. Projects with initial operational dates on or after December 15, 1989, but before October 1, 1999—10 points.
d. Projects with initial operational dates on or after October 1, 1999—0 points;
8. Projects with Open Physical Findings. An “Open Physical Finding” is a physical condition to the property buildings or improvements, identified by the Agency that is not in compliance with the Agency standards published in 7 CFR 3560.103. Projects with Open Physical Findings classified “B”, “C”, or “D”, as defined below, will be awarded points in the following manner:
Class “D” projects are those projects that are in default and may be taken into inventory, be lost to the program, or cause the displacement of tenants. Defaults can be monetary or non-monetary. Projects in default are those where the Agency has notified the borrower of a violation using the Agency's servicing letter process, and the borrower has not addressed the violation to the Agency's satisfaction.
Class “C” projects are projects with Open Physical or Financial findings or violations, which are not associated to an approved workout and/or transition plan. This can
Class “B” projects indicate the Agency has taken servicing steps and the borrower is cooperating to resolve identified findings or violations by associating an approved workout plan and/or transition plan.
a. For projects classified a “C” or “D” for 24 months or more. 20 points
b. For projects classified as a “C” or “D” for less than 24 months. 15 points
a. For projects classified as a “B” because of a workout and/or transition plan approved by the Agency for not more than 12 months prior to the application closing dates contained in this Notice. 25 points
b. Projects with an Agency “C” classification
9. Closed Sale of Section 515 projects to non-profit/Public Housing Authority. The Agency will award 30 points for projects that have been sold to nonprofit organizations under the prepayment process as explained in 7 CFR 3560, Subpart N. To receive points, the borrower/applicant must provide a copy of
10. Prior approved CNAs. In the interest of ensuring timely application processing and underwriting, the Agency will award up to 20 points for projects with CNAs already approved by the Agency. “Approved” means the date the CNA or an updated CNA was approved by the Agency. CNAs or updates previously approved more than 12 months prior to the pre-application submission, may not be used for MPR underwriting without an update approved by the Agency. Points will be awarded for:
a. CNAs approved no earlier than 12 months before MPR closing date specified in this NOTICE for which the MPR pre-application is filed, 20 points
b. CNAs approved no earlier than 24 months before MPR closing date specified in this NOTICE for which the MPR pre-application is filed, 10 points
11.
12. For portfolio sales with project consolidations as defined in this Notice, the Agency will award the following points:
a. Proposal does not involve a consolidation of properties 0 points;
b. Proposal involves a consolidation of 2-4 properties 5 points;
c. Proposal involves a consolidation of 5 or more properties 10 points.
13. Energy Conservation, Energy Generation, and Green Property Management. Project may receive a maximum total of not more than a combined 42 points under three categories: Energy Conservation, Energy Generation, and Green Property Management. 42 Points
a. Energy Conservation. Under the MPR Energy Initiatives, projects participating in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners,
b. Other Energy Conservation. If you are
i. This proposal includes the replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment with Energy Star qualified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. 4 points
ii. This proposal includes the replacement of windows and doors with Energy Star qualified windows and doors. 4 points
iii. This proposal includes additional attic and wall insulation that exceeds the required R-Value of these building elements for your areas as per the International Energy Conservation Code 2012. Three points will be awarded if all exterior walls exceed insulation code, and 2 points will be awarded if attic insulation exceeds code for a maximum of 5 points.
iv. This proposal includes the reduction in building shell air leakage by at least 15 percent as determined by pre- and post-rehab blower door testing on a sample of units. Building shell air leakage may be reduced through materials such as caulk, spray foam, gaskets, and house-wrap. Sealing of duct work with mastic, foil-backed tape, or aerosolized duct sealants can also help reduce air leakage. 4 points
v. This proposal includes 100 percent of installed appliances and exhaust fans that are Energy Star qualified. 3 points
vi. This proposal includes 100 percent of installed water heaters that are
vii. Energy Star qualified. 3 points
viii. This proposal included replacement of 100 percent of toilets with flush capacity of more than 1.6 gallon flush capacity with new toilets having 1.6 gallon flush capacity or less, and with Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Water Sense label. 2 points
ix. This proposal includes 100 percent of new showerheads with EPA Water Sense label. 2 points
x. This proposal included 100 percent of new faucets with EPA Water Sense label. 1 point
xi. This proposal included 100 percent energy-efficient lighting including, but not limited to, Energy Star qualified fixtures, compact fluorescent replacement bulbs in standard incandescent fixtures and Energy Star ceiling fans. 2 points
c. Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county, or municipality program will receive an additional 2 points. The applicant should be aware and look for additional requirements that are sometimes embedded in the third-party program's rating and verification systems. 2 points
14. Energy Generation (Maximum 5 Points).
Pre-applications which participate in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners, or receive at least 20 points for Energy Conservation measures, are eligible to earn additional points for installation of
Points under this paragraph will be awarded as follows. Projects with preliminary or rehabilitation building plans and energy analysis that propose a 10 percent to 100 percent energy generation commitment (where generation is considered to be the total amount of energy needed to be generated on-site to make the building a net-zero consumer of energy) may be awarded points corresponding to their percent of commitment as follows:
a. 10 to 20 percent commitment to energy generation receives 1 point;
b. 21 to 40 percent commitment to energy generation receives 2 points;
c. 41 to 60 percent commitment to energy generation receives 3 points;
d. 61 to 80 percent commitment to energy generation receives 4 points;
e. 81 to 100 percent or more commitment to energy generation receives 5 points.
In order to receive more than 1 point for this energy generation paragraph, an accurate energy analysis prepared by an engineer will need to be submitted with the pre-application. Energy analysis of preliminary building plans using industry-recognized simulation software must document the projected total energy consumption of the building, the portion of building consumption which will be satisfied through on-site generation, and the building's Home Energy Rating System (HERS) score.
15. Green Property Management Credentials (5 Points).
Pre-applications may be awarded an additional 5 points if the designated property management company or individuals that will assume maintenance and operations responsibilities upon completion of construction work have a Credential for Green Property Management. Credentialing can be obtained from the National Apartment Association (NAA), National Affordable Housing Management Association, The Institute for Real Estate Management, or the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Operations and Maintenance (LEED OM). Credentialing must be illustrated in the resume(s) of the property management team and included with the pre-application.
16. Sponsor Bonus.
Pre-applications submitted solely by an Indian tribe or non-profit Organization as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11 and providing appropriate documentation with the pre-application will receive an additional 10 points.
The Agency will total the points awarded to each pre-application and rank them according to their respective total score. If point totals are equal, the earliest time and date the pre-application was received by the Agency will determine the ranking. In the event pre-applications are still tied, they will be further ranked by giving priority to those projects with the earliest Rural Development operational date as defined under section V A 7.
B. Confirmation of Eligibility.
For pre-applications submitted under this Notice requesting debt deferral
For pre-applications submitted under this Notice, eligibility will be confirmed after ranking is completed. If one or more of the pre-applications is determined ineligible then the next highest-scoring pre-application will be confirmed for eligibility.
If one or more of the pre-applications is a portfolio transaction, eligibility determinations will be conducted on each pre-application associated with the portfolio. Should any of the pre-applications associated with the portfolio be determined ineligible, those ineligible pre-application(s) will be rejected, but the overall eligibility of the portfolio will not be affected as long as the requirements in Section I and other provisions of this Notice are met, as determined by the Agency.
If one or more of the pre-applications in a State is a project consolidation, and one of the projects involved in the consolidation does not meet the occupancy standards cited in Section III A (4) and (5), that project(s) will be determined ineligible and eliminated from the proposed consolidation transaction.
1. Award Administration Information.
A. Selection of Pre-Applications for Further Processing.
For pre-applications submitted under this Notice and requesting debt deferral only, the Agency will complete the eligibility confirmations on an ongoing basis and authorize those applicants determined eligible to proceed, subject to the availability of appropriated funds under the MPR program.
B. Pre-Application Selection.
State offices will score complete pre-applications, received on or prior to the submission deadlines in the “DATES” section of this Notice, using the criteria in Section “V.
Those eligible pre-applications that are ranked and then selected for further processing will be invited to submit a formal application on SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Applications (SF 424s) can be obtained and completed online. An electronic version of this form may be found at:
Applicants rejected will be notified that their pre-applications were not selected and advised of their appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.
Awards made under this Notice are subject to the provisions contained in the Agriculture, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113235, Division E, Title 1, sections 744 and 745, regarding corporate felony convictions and corporate federal tax delinquencies. In accordance with those provisions, only selected applicants that are or propose to be corporations need submit the following form as part of their MPR formal application; such applicants must submit an executed form AD-3030, which can be found online at:
If a pre-application is accepted for further processing, the applicant must submit additional information needed to demonstrate eligibility and feasibility (such as a CNA), consistent with this
Complete project information must be submitted as soon as possible, but in no case later than 45 calendar days from the date of Agency notification of the applicant's selection for further processing. MPR transfer applicants must submit a preliminary transfer request as required by 7 CFR 3560.406 (c) within 45 days of the RD notification and will be allowed a total of 180 days in which to submit the final transfer MPR application. If the State Office determines there exists compelling reasons the full transfer application cannot be delivered within the stated timeframe and upon the receipt of the applicant's written request the MPR due date may be extended for an additional period of 90 days (Section VI. B. will apply). Any extensions beyond the former must recommended by the State Office and concurred by the HQ Review Underwriter assigned to the State.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, any pre-applications selected under this Notice's, will be considered withdrawn on December 31, 2018, if not approved by the Agency.
Failure to submit the required information in a timely manner will result in the Agency discontinuing the processing of the request.
The Agency will work with the applicants selected for further processing in accordance with the following:
a. Based on the feasibility of the type of transaction that will best suit the project and the availability of funds, further eligibility confirmation determinations will be conducted by the Agency.
b. If an Agency-approved CNA has not already been submitted to the Agency, an Agency-approved CNA will be required (see 7 CFR 3560.103(c) and the Agency's published “Guidance on the Capital Needs Assessment Process” available at
c. Underwriting will be conducted by the Agency. The feasibility and structure of each revitalization proposal will be based on the Agency's underwriting and determination of the MPR funding tools that will minimize the cost to the Government consistent with the purposes of this Notice.
C. MPR Offers.
Approved MPR offers will be presented to successful applicants who will then have up to 15 calendar days to accept or reject the offer in writing. If no offer is made or if the applicant fails to accept or reject the offer presented, the application will be rejected and appeal rights will be given. Closing of MPR offers will occur within six months of the obligation of MPR tools unless extended in writing by the Agency. All Offers are explicitly made subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Should sufficient funds not be available at any time to funds any authorized MPR offers for which funds have not been obligated, including those with only transfer debt deferral, the Agency may notify the applicant accordingly and the authorization may be cancelled.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA Rural Development MFH State Office contacts can be found at:
Appropriation Act funding will be posted on the Rural Development Web site.
All adverse determinations are appealable pursuant to 7 CFR part 11. Instructions on the appeal process will be provided at the time an applicant is notified of the adverse action.
U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to
To ensure consideration, written or on-line comments must be submitted on or before November 6, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael Flaherty, U.S. Census Bureau, HQ-6H149, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD 20746, (301) 763-7699 (or via the internet at
The U.S. Census Bureau, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), plans to conduct the Business Research and Development Survey (BRDS) for the 2017-2019 survey years (collected in calendar years 2018-2020). The BRDS covers all domestic, non-farm, for-profit businesses with at least 10 paid employees. The BRDS provides the only comprehensive data on Research and Development (R&D) costs and detailed expenses by type and industry.
The Census Bureau has conducted an R&D survey since 1957 (the Survey of Industrial Research and Development (SIRD) from 1957-2007 and the Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) from 2008-2016), collecting primarily financial information on the systematic work companies undertake to discover new knowledge or use existing knowledge to develop new or improved goods and services.
From 2008-2015, the BRDIS collected R&D and innovation data from companies with five or more employees. In 2016, the BRDIS collected R&D and innovation data from companies with at least one paid employee. Beginning in 2017, the BRDS will no longer collect innovation data and only companies with at least 10 paid employees will be in scope. The Census Bureau will continue to collect R&D data from companies with fewer than 10 employees, and innovation data from all companies, however, beginning in 2017, these data will be collected on a different survey.
The 2017-2019 BRDS will continue to collect the following types of information:
• R&D expense based on accepted accounting standards.
• Worldwide R&D of domestic companies.
• Business segment detail.
• R&D-related capital expenditures.
• Detailed data about the R&D workforce.
• R&D strategy and data on the potential impact of R&D on the market.
• R&D directed to application areas of particular national interest.
• Data measuring intellectual property protection activities and technology transfer.
Domestic and foreign researchers in academia, business, and government analyze and cite data from the BRDS. Among the federal government users are the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). BEA includes R&D in the system of national accounts that measures the economic well-being of the country. BRDS data are key inputs into these accounts, which feed into the calculation of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The White House, in 2006, issued the American Competitiveness Initiative to “increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship.” In support of this initiative and in response to legislative mandates, data on R&D are delivered to OSTP, primarily in the biennial National Science Board report
Beginning in 2017, the BRDS will follow a primarily electronic collection strategy. The BRD-1 form will be available on the Web site to assist respondents with gathering the required data prior to reporting online. Paper forms will also be sent to respondents upon request, however no paper forms will be included in initial mail packets. The online survey automatically skips questions that do not apply [based on previous responses] and checks for common errors. Links to detailed question-by-question instructions will be embedded in the electronic instrument. Excel spreadsheets are available to facilitate the electronic collection of information from various areas of the companies. Respondents have the capability to download the spreadsheets from the Census Bureau's Web site. A consolidator spreadsheet is also available to assist companies that need to gather information from business units and then compile the information into one company report.
The due date will be six weeks after mail out.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of inquiry; request for comments.
The purpose of this notice is to advise the public that the National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the proposed Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Stockpile Annual Materials Plan. The role of the Market Impact Committee is to advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions, conversions, and disposals involving the stockpile and related material research and development projects. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
To be considered, written comments must be received by October 5, 2017.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Eric Longnecker, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230, fax: (202) 482-5650 (Attn: Eric Longnecker), email:
Parya Fenton, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-8228, fax: (202) 482-5650 (Attn: Parya Fenton), email:
Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Revision Act of 1979, as amended (the Stock Piling Act) (50 U.S.C. 98
Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h-1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile. . . .” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the U.S. Government against avoidable loss.
The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the materials stored in or of interest to the National Defense Stockpile Manager.
As the National Defense Stockpile Manager, the DLA must produce an Annual Materials Plan proposing the maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, converted, recovered, or sold by the DLA in a particular fiscal year. In Attachment 1, the DLA lists the quantities and type of activity (potential acquisition, potential disposal, potential upgrade, potential conversion, potential recovery, or potential sale) associated with each material in its proposed FY 2019 Annual Materials Plan (“AMP”). The quantities listed in Attachment 1 are not acquisition, disposal, upgrade, conversion, recovery, or sales target quantities, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum quantity of each listed material that may be acquired, disposed of, upgraded, converted, recovered, or sold in a particular fiscal year by the DLA, as noted. The quantity of each material that will actually be acquired or offered for sale will depend on the market for the material at the time of the acquisition or offering, as well as on the quantity of each material approved for acquisition, disposal, conversion, recovery, or upgrade by Congress.
The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact associated with the proposed FY 2019 AMP as enumerated in Attachment 1. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the quantities associated with the proposed FY 2019 AMP. All comments must be submitted to the addresses indicated in this notice. All comments submitted through email must include the phrase “Market Impact Committee Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line.
The Committee encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on October 5, 2017. The Committee will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured.
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law.
The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable September 5, 2017.
Justin Neuman or Omar Qureshi, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-7438, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 26, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Turkey. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
In accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of wire rod for all other exporters or producers not individually examined. For a full description of the methodology and results of the Department's analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for “all other” exporters or producers of subject merchandise. In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from the exporters/producers identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
Applicable September 5, 2017.
Yasmin Bordas or John Corrigan, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-7438, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 26, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is wire rod from Italy. For
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high-nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products (tin mill products) from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Applicable September 5, 2017.
Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3813.
On May 1, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the third sunset review of the antidumping duty order on tin mill products from Japan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On May 31, 2017, we received complete substantive responses for this review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties, nor was a hearing requested. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the order.
The products covered by the antidumping duty order are tin mill flat-rolled products that are coated or plated with tin, chromium or chromium oxides. Flat-rolled steel products coated with tin are known as tin plate. Flat-rolled steel products coated with chromium or chromium oxides are known as tin-free steel or electrolytic chromium-coated steel. The merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), under HTSUS subheadings 7210.11.0000, 7210.12.0000, 7210.50.0000, 7212.10.0000, and 7212.50.0000 if of non-alloy steel and under HTSUS subheadings 7225.99.0090, and 7226.99.0180 if of alloy steel. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.
All issues raised in this review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tin mill products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average dumping margins up to 95.29 percent.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council (TFAC or Council) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Monday, September 18, 2017. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.
The TFAC was chartered on August 11, 2016, to advise the Secretary in identifying effective ways to help expand access to finance for U.S. exporters, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and their foreign buyers.
Monday, September 18, 2017, from approximately 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, September 11, 2017. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for TFAC at
The meeting will be held by conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted via email to
Ericka Ukrow, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries (OFII), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-0405; email:
On July 25, 2016, the Secretary of Commerce established the TFAC pursuant to discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The TFAC advises the Secretary of Commerce in identifying effective ways to help expand access to finance for U.S. exporters, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and their foreign buyers. The TFAC also provides a forum to facilitate the discussion between a diverse groups of stakeholders such as banks, non-bank financial institutions, other trade finance related organizations, and exporters, to gain a better understanding regarding current challenges facing U.S. exporters in accessing finance.
During the meeting on September 18, 2017, TFAC members are expected to deliberate and potentially adopt a letter outlining its recommendation for Secretary of Commerce on “Increasing Credit Capacity for U.S. SME Exporters.” A copy of the draft recommendation can be made available upon request to Ericka Ukrow at (202) 482-0405; email:
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities.
All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the
All comments and statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you are prepared to have made publicly available.
Copies of TFAC meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (REEEAC) will hold a meeting on Thursday, November 16, 2017 at the U.S. Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.
November 16, 2017, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance with Victoria Gunderson at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, November 10, 2017, in order to pre-register, including any requests to make comments during the meeting or for accommodations or auxiliary aids.
To register, please contact Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email:
Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email:
On November 16, the REEEAC will hold the third in-person meeting of its new charter term and hold REEEAC sub-committee working sessions, discuss next steps for each sub-committee (Export Competitiveness, Market Access, and Finance), consider recommendations for approval, and hear from officials from the Department of Commerce and other agencies on major issues affecting the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Agenda will be made available by November 1 upon request.
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the
A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, November 10, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Ms. Gunderson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.; Mail Stop: 4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, November 10, 2017, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is aligning the final determination in this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation.
September 5, 2017.
John Corrigan at (202) 482-7438, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated the CVD and AD investigations of aluminum foil from the PRC.
On August 14, 2017, the Department published the preliminary affirmative CVD determination pertaining to aluminum foil from the PRC.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on high pressure steel cylinders (Steel Cylinders) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Applicable September 5, 2017.
Mark Kennedy, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7883.
On May 1, 2017, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise covered by the scope of the
Excluded from the scope of the
Merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (REEEAC) will hold a conference call on Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. EDT The conference call is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.
September 28, 2017, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance with Victoria Gunderson at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, September 22, 2017, in order to pre-register, including any requests to make comments during the meeting or for accommodations or auxiliary aids.
To register, please contact Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email:
Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email:
On September 28, 2017, the REEEAC will hold a conference call to potentially approve recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce informing of actions to improve the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the
A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, September 22, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Ms. Gunderson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.; Mail Stop: 4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, September 22, 2017, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (Responsible Party: Teri Rowles, D.V.M., Ph.D.), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 18786-01.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Shasta McClenahan or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 18786-02 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 18786, issued on June 30, 2015 (80 FR 44939), authorizes the permit holder to: (1) Carry out response, rescue, rehabilitation and release of threatened and endangered marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction (Cetacea and Pinnipedia [excluding walrus]), and disentanglement of all marine mammals under NMFS jurisdiction, pursuant to sections 109(h), 112(c), and Title IV of the MMPA; and, carry out such activities as enhancement pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA; (2) Conduct health-related, bona fide scientific research studies on marine mammals and marine mammal parts under NMFS jurisdiction pursuant to sections 104(c) and Title IV of the MMPA and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, including research related to emergency response that may involve compromised animals, and research on healthy animals that have not been subject to emergency response (
The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include authorization to: (1) Increase the number of dolphins captured, handled, and released for research by 200 takes; (2) increase the number of research takes for non-ESA listed pinniped species by 200 takes for directed research and by 500 takes for sampling under other permitted research; (3) increase the number of research takes for non-ESA listed large whales by 400 takes; (4) add 10 dedicated research takes for the proposed ESA-listed Gulf of Mexico subspecies of Bryde's whale (
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the original permit (No. 18786) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The National Marine Fisheries Service announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the environmental impacts of issuing annual incidental harassment authorizations (IHAs) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to anthropogenic activities in the waters of Cook Inlet, Alaska, for the 2018 season; and its intent to continue an annual cycle for issuing MMPA IHAs in Cook Inlet such that companies planning to submit IHA applications for work to be conducted in Cook Inlet in 2018 do so by no later than October 1, 2017. We refer prospective applicants to our 2016 Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (
Applicants should submit applications to the Permits and Conservation Division in the Office of Protected Resources by October 1, 2017.
Applications should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing applications is
Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8484.
Sections 101 (a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Cook Inlet is a semi-enclosed tidal estuary located in southcentral Alaska and home to the Cook Inlet beluga whale, a small resident population that was designated as depleted under the MMPA and listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008. The stock has not recovered, despite implementation of subsistence hunting regulations in 1999, and cessation of hunting in 2007. In May 2015, NMFS unveiled its “Species in the Spotlight: Survive to Thrive” initiative. This initiative includes targeted efforts vital for stabilizing eight species—including the Cook Inlet beluga whale—identified among the most at risk for extinction. The approach involves intensive human efforts to stabilize these species, with the goal that they will become candidates for recovery. NMFS issued a
Due to the reduced number of ITA requests in the region, combined with current funding constraints, NMFS' intention of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for oil and gas activities in Cook Inlet has been postponed (79 FR 61616; October 14, 2014). Should the number of ITA requests, or anticipated requests, noticeably increase, NMFS will re-evaluate whether preparation of an EIS is necessary.
To support NMFS' efforts to prepare an EA that covers multiple MMPA incidental harassment authorizations for the 2018 open water season, NMFS is continuing an application cycle for incidental harassment authorizations that include Cook Inlet beluga whales. NMFS requests prospective MMPA incidental harassment authorization applicants for the 2018 open water season to submit their applications by October 1, 2017 (unless the activity is scheduled to occur before May, in which case they should be submitted earlier). Receipt of those MMPA applications by October 1, 2017, will aid NMFS in the development of an EA to support timely and well-informed MMPA incidental harassment authorizations.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Generic Information Collection Request for Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Amy Borgstrom, at 202-606-6930 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by October 5, 2017.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods by 30
(1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or
(2) By email to:
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Description: This collection was developed as part of a federal government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on agency service delivery.
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory Board (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
This committee's charter is being renewed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2904 and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2904(e), the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Council (“the Council”) shall refer to the Board, and the Board shall review, each proposed research project including its estimated cost, for research in and development of technologies related to environmental activities in excess of $1,000,000. The Council, pursuant to its responsibilities under 10 U.S.C. 2902(d)(1) and in an effort to enhance the Board's review process, has lowered the dollar threshold for referral by the Council to the Board to any proposed research project in excess of $900,000. The Board shall make any recommendations to the Council that the Board considers appropriate regarding such project or proposal. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2904(a), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall jointly appoint not less than six and not more than 14 members. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2904(b), the Board membership shall be composed of the following: (a) Permanent members of the Board are the Science Advisor to the President and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or their respective designees; and (b) Non-permanent members of the Board shall be appointed from among persons eminent in the fields of basic sciences, engineering, ocean and environmental sciences, education, research management, international and security affairs, health physics, health sciences, or social sciences, with due regard given to the equitable representation of scientists and engineers who are women or who represent minority groups. One such member of the Board shall be a representative of environmental public interest groups, and one such member shall be a representative of the interests of State governments. Board members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. Each member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Board/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Defense Policy Board (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at
The Board shall provide the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, independent, informed advice and opinions concerning matters of defense policy in response to specific tasks from the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P). The Board shall focus on: (a) Issues central to strategic DoD planning; (b) policy implications of U.S. force structure and force modernization on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; (c) U.S. regional defense policies; and (d) any other topics raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P). The Board shall be composed of no more than 35 members who have distinguished backgrounds in defense and national security affairs. Members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. Each member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Board/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Such statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned Board meetings. All written statements must be submitted to the Board's DFO who will ensure the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice of arbitration decisions.
The Department of Education (Department) is changing the way it notifies the public of arbitration panel decisions under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The Department will no longer publish detailed synopses of each decision in the
Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
For the purpose of providing blind persons with remunerative employment, enlarging their economic opportunities, and stimulating greater efforts to make themselves self-supporting, the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107
The Act requires arbitration of disputes between SLAs and blind vendors and between SLAs and Federal agencies before three-person panels convened by the Department whose decisions constitute final agency action. 20 U.S.C. 107d-1. The Act also makes these decisions matters of public record and requires their publication in the
The Department's long-standing practice has been to publish in the
The time it took to draft these synopses resulted in a publishing backlog, however. Therefore, the Department has decided to change its practice in a way that will allow it to comply with the statutory requirement for publication and to provide the text of the arbitration panel decisions to the public more quickly and conveniently and at minimal cost to the Department.
The Department will now make the full text of arbitration panel decisions under the Act available on the Department's Web site, and we will add older, archived decisions as they become available in the proper format and are made accessible to individuals with disabilities under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The decisions will be searchable by key terms and available for download in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format. The Department will continue to provide copies of decisions to members of the public upon request to the person listed under
Since the beginning of 2017, Randolph-Sheppard Arbitration panels have issued the following decisions.
The decisions are available at
At this same site, we have posted the following decisions from 2016.
In the future, shortly after the end of every calendar quarter-March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31-the Department will publish a notice in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 5, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Amanda Hoffman, 202-245-6951.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402, and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating NYPA as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. On June 30, 2017, NYPA filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: Comments on Pre-Application Document, Study Requests, Comments on Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by October 28, 2017.
p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, starting at 11:00 a.m. All participants should meet at the Hinckley Boat Launch, located at 11740 State Route 365, Remsen, NY 13438. NYPA will provide shuttles to visit locations within the project boundary. To attend the environmental site review, please RSVP via email to
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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 Southampton 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 18, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CA Flats Solar 130, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
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 18, 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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Notification of Non-material Change in Status of Interstate Power and Light Company, et al.
Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-28_Termination of SA 2411 ITC-Detroit Edison E&P Agreement (J122) to be effective 8/29/2017.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility 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 Bladen 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
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 18, 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
Take notice that on August 28, 2017, pursuant to sections 35.28(e)(2)and 358.1(d) and Rules 101(e) and 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Bullock 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 18, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings 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 18, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Shoreham Solar Commons 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 18, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Nexus Energy Inc.'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
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 18, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of EC&R Energy Marketing, 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 18, 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Golden Hills North Wind, 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 18, 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
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of meeting.
If you plan to attend the ASC Meeting in person, we ask that you send an email to
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 29, 2017.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Notification of Nonfinancial Data Processing Activities (FR 4021; OMB No. 7100-0306).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following report:
Under the Federal Reserve Act (FRA), the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) have the authority to open accounts for member banks and other eligible depository institutions (collectively, depository institutions). The Reserve Banks routinely open and maintain individual Federal Reserve accounts for eligible institutions. Joint accounts—those where the rights and liabilities are shared among multiple depository institution account-holders—have not in the past been available as a standard account option, but in limited cases the Reserve Banks have opened such accounts for specific purposes. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has approved final guidelines for evaluating requests for joint accounts at Reserve Banks intended to facilitate settlement between and among depository institutions participating in private-sector payment systems (private-sector arrangements). The guidelines broadly outline factors that will be considered in evaluating such requests, but are not intended to provide assurance that any specific arrangement would be granted a joint account. Requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with the type and extent of information necessary to evaluate a particular request likely dependent on the complexity of the arrangement.
September 5, 2017.
Susan V. Foley, Senior Associate Director (202-452-3596), Kylie Stewart, Manager (202-245-4207), or Ian C.B. Spear, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; Gavin Smith, Counsel (202-452-3474), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202-263-4869.
On December 22, 2016, the Board requested comment on proposed guidelines for evaluating requests for joint accounts at Federal Reserve Banks intended to facilitate settlement between depository institutions participating in private-sector arrangements within the U.S. payment system.
CHIPS is a multilateral netting system that continuously settles wholesale payments between two or more participating institutions.
TCH offers a UPIC service that enables its customer's end users to provide payment instructions to third parties without disclosing their bank account information and enables such end users to change banking relationships without needing to notify each payor of the change (the UPIC remains the same). The joint account for UPIC transactions enables the settlement of ACH credit transactions using UPICs when the transactions are sent by customers of the Reserve Banks' FedACH service and destined for participants in TCH's UPIC service.
For purposes of these guidelines, a joint account is an account at a Reserve Bank where the rights and liabilities are shared among multiple account-holders (joint account holders), that is, institutions that are eligible to open an account with a Reserve Bank. The Board contemplates that under these arrangements, the joint account holders will authorize a single entity to serve as their “agent” in providing instructions to the Reserve Bank at which the account would be held (the account-holding Reserve Bank) with respect to the account. The account-holding Reserve Bank would be authorized to act on any instruction provided by the agent, consistent with the provisions of the joint account agreement. The Board also contemplates private-sector arrangements using joint accounts might also use an “operator” (which could be the agent of the joint account or a separate entity) for the running of the arrangement, which might include undertaking various steps in the payment process such as initiation, clearing, settlement, and reconciliation, or establishing rules and governance. “Participants” in the arrangement might include joint account holders, as well as other depository institutions and nondepository institutions that are directly part of the payment system established by the private-sector arrangement.
In 2016, Board and Reserve Bank (collectively, Federal Reserve) staff received a request from an organization to open a new joint account for that organization's proposed real-time payment system. Given the ongoing evolution of the U.S. payment system, the Board believes that other potential providers may contemplate joint account arrangements, or may reconsider their options for settlement capabilities if they understand better the availability of joint accounts at Reserve Banks.
The Board therefore proposed to establish a set of guidelines that would be considered in evaluating requests for joint accounts intended to facilitate settlement between depository institutions participating in private-sector arrangements. The Board proposed guidelines based on the following six principles:
(1) As a necessary condition for evaluating a joint account request, each joint account holder should meet all applicable legal requirements to have a Federal Reserve account, and the Reserve Bank will not have any obligation to any non-account holder with respect to the funds in the account.
(2) The private-sector arrangement should demonstrate that it has a sound legal and operational basis for its payment system, including an effective legal framework for achieving settlement finality.
(3) The design and rules of the private-sector arrangement should be consistent with the Federal Reserve's policy objectives to promote a safe, efficient, and accessible payment system for U.S. dollar transactions and be consistent with the intended use of the arrangement.
(4) The provision of the joint account should not create undue credit, settlement, or other risks to the Reserve Banks.
(5) The provision of a joint account should not create undue risk to the overall payment system.
(6) The provision of a joint account should not adversely affect monetary policy operations.
The Board requested comment on all aspects of the proposed guidelines, including whether the scope and application were sufficiently clear and appropriate to achieve their intended purpose and any other criteria or information that commenters believed may be relevant to evaluate joint account requests. The Board further sought comment specifically on the following:
• What information, if any, about the establishment of an individual joint account should be made public?
• How, if at all, would the possibility (1) that the account agreement with the account holding Reserve Bank may include limits on balances, require information on projected balances or volatility of balances, or restrict further joint accounts; or (2) that the joint account may be closed if warranted affect interest in establishing a joint account, or use of such an account once opened? Are there other types of restrictions or conditions that, while equally effective in attaining the same objectives, might be less burdensome if placed on joint accounts once in use?
• Are there additional criteria or information that may be relevant to evaluate joint account requests for U.S. depository institutions to provide services to foreign clearing and settlement arrangements?
• Should the Board or the Reserve Banks consider other steps or actions to facilitate settlement in light of market participants' efforts to develop faster retail payment solutions?
The Board received nine comments in response to its request. Comments were submitted by depository institutions, depository institution trade associations, a national payments association, service providers and payment system operators, and an individual. All nine commenters supported establishment of the guidelines. No commenter expressed opposition to any of the six proposed principles or the guidelines more broadly. Five commenters requested that the Board clarify certain aspects or
Each of the proposed principles, the comments received, and the Board's final guidelines are described in additional detail below. Throughout the final guidelines, the Board has made changes to clarify the application of the final six principles and more specifically identify the parties to a private-sector arrangement for which individual principles and evaluation factors are relevant.
1.
Unless otherwise specified by statute, only those entities that are member banks or other depository institutions are legally able to obtain Federal Reserve accounts and payment services.
Three commenters addressed the first proposed principle and supported the proposed principle as consistent with existing account policies regarding Federal Reserve accounts. Two of the three commenters further stated that the first proposed principle would ensure the integrity of the payment system. None of the three commenters proposed changes to the first proposed principle or its considerations.
In the final guidelines, the Board has adopted the first principle as proposed with minor technical changes for clarity. As proposed, only an institution eligible to have a Federal Reserve account under applicable federal statute and Federal Reserve rules, policies, and procedures is able to be a joint account holder. Some institutions may be eligible for a Federal Reserve account but may present atypical risk profiles, such as uninsured institutions. In these cases, a heightened analysis of that institution's participation as a joint account holder may be performed under one or more of the other guidelines. The final guidelines now provide further clarification that under the first principle, the designated agent or operator of the private-sector arrangement would not need to be eligible for a Federal Reserve account, assuming it is not a joint account holder.
2.
Under the second proposed principle, the Board proposed that a private-sector arrangement seeking a joint account should have a sound legal and operational basis for its payment system, including an effective legal framework for achieving settlement finality. The Board explained that under the second proposed principle, requestors of a joint account would be expected to provide supporting legal analysis as well as the system's rules, agreements, and other governing documents.
Three commenters addressed the second proposed principle. All three commenters were generally supportive, stating that the expectations described under the second proposed principle reduce risks to participants and the broader payment system. Only one of the commenters, a payment system operator, suggested modifications. Specifically, the commenter suggested that joint account requests only be approved if the agent and operator are subject to federal examination authority, in particular the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's significant service provider or technology service provider programs.
In considering the appropriate level of supervision for an arrangement whose participants use a joint account at a Reserve Bank, the Board seeks to reduce risks for the Reserve Banks and the payment system as a whole while at the same time avoiding posing unwarranted access barriers. However, the Board does agree that, at some point in the maturity of a private-sector arrangement, federal supervision or examination may be important. For example, a successful private-sector arrangement is likely to grow over time
Therefore, the Board has added to the provision that the private-sector arrangement be subject to federal or state supervision an expectation that the payment system established by a private-sector arrangement (including the operator) is also subject to the jurisdiction of a federal banking agency with the authority to examine or inspect the private-sector arrangement and take supervisory actions against the arrangement or its participants.
The Board also believes that consideration of those supervisory factors, as well as consideration of issues related to the operational soundness of the private-sector arrangement, would be more appropriately addressed under the final guidelines' third principle as part of considering the Federal Reserve's objectives to promote a safe, efficient, and accessible payment system for U.S. dollar transactions. In the final guidelines, the Board has therefore identified those elements as considerations under principle three.
Finally, as part of the final guidelines, and as indicated above, the Board has clarified the phrase “sound legal basis” in the second principle to mean a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis in all aspects of the proposed arrangement. The Board has also made other minor technical changes for clarity.
3.
As explained under the third proposed principle, a private-sector arrangement using a joint account to facilitate settlement would be expected to manage risks consistent with Part I of the Board's Policy on Payment System Risk (PSR Policy), even if the private-sector arrangement is not otherwise subject to the PSR Policy. Also of relevance was (1) whether the system is widely available for use by its intended end users and is designed to minimize the risk of disruption (rejection or delay of payments) to end users and (2) whether the system creates undue inefficiencies in the payment process or undue barriers to interoperability within the U.S. dollar payment system. The Board also explained that evaluation of a joint account request would assess whether the private-sector arrangement promotes payment system improvements and innovations and the extent to which the arrangement fosters competition in the payment system. The design and rules of the private-sector arrangement, including rules relating to the funding of and disbursements from the joint account, should also be consistent with the intended use of the account. For example, the rules should not provide an incentive for a participant that is not a joint account holder and not eligible for its own individual Federal Reserve account to use its participation in the arrangement, including the funding of its obligations under the arrangement through a joint account holder, to inappropriately take advantage of the credit-risk-free nature of the joint account for purposes other than settling payments through the arrangement.
The Board did not receive any comments suggesting modifications under the third proposed principle but did receive one comment from a national payments association related to principle five that the Board believes has implications for principle three. The commenter suggested that it would be relevant for the Board to consider the extent to which a private-sector arrangement facilitates payments as part of a transparent payment system, noting that less transparent mechanisms could reduce effective risk management of participants by providing inadequate visibility for all parties to sufficiently monitor and manage risks, which may affect the payment system more broadly. The Board believes that effective risk management will be adequately considered in the final guidelines but agrees that promoting transparency in the overall payment system is also an important policy objective. Therefore the final guidelines include under the third principle a consideration of the extent to which a private-sector arrangement promotes transparency for end users and the public more broadly (for example by making operating rules, rulemaking processes, list of participants, or certain network statistics publicly available).
As described in the discussions regarding the Board's second and fourth proposed principles, the Board believes, based on the comments received, that several considerations proposed under those principles would be more appropriately evaluated as part of principle three, specifically factors related to supervision, operational soundness (such as policies and procedures to minimize disruption when one of its participants, the agent, or the operator fails or in the event of operational failures), and financial soundness of the operator (such as financial statements and cash flow projections). The third principle of the final guidelines also provides greater clarity on the consideration of the Board's PSR Policy, specifically that a private-sector arrangement would be expected to comply with the general policy expectations for payment systems outlined within Part I of the PSR Policy at a minimum, even if it is not otherwise subject to the policy, in addition to any supervisory obligations.
The Board has also clarified that as part of the third principle, the arrangement's rules should sufficiently address the responsibilities and liabilities of the participants, agent, and operator in cases of operational disruption, or erroneous or fraudulent conduct. Lastly, the final guidelines provide additional clarity related to consideration under the third principle of the extent to which the design and rules of the arrangement are consistent with the intended use of the arrangement.
4.
The Board in its proposal explained under the fourth proposed principle that granting a request for a joint account should not create undue risks to a Reserve Bank. For instance, the Board proposed that an operator for an arrangement must be financially sound and that the agent should demonstrate
One commenter, a depository institution, addressed the fourth proposed principle. The commenter suggested that evaluation under the principle should consider the contingency processing capabilities of owners, participants and operators of a private-sector arrangement. The Board agrees that contingency processing capabilities will be important when evaluating joint account requests and believes that such considerations are already accounted for under several of the principles, including consideration of the private-sector arrangement's ability to minimize disruption to its system and to meet the requirements of the PSR Policy (principle three), the agent's ability to monitor transactions originated and received by the account (principle four), and whether the arrangement poses undue risk to the overall payment system (principle five). As those considerations are included in the final guidelines, the Board does not intend to include a separate contingency assessment as part of principle four.
The same commenter asked that the guidelines set forth a clearly defined review process for assessing the financial soundness of operators. The Board agrees that providing further information may be helpful to requestors and the final guidelines clarify that it will likely be necessary to review (among other things) the financial statements of operators, as well as cash flow projections (including capital and operating expenses). The Board also believes that those financial soundness factors would be more appropriately addressed under the final guidelines' third principle when considering the Federal Reserve's objectives to promote a safe, efficient, and accessible payment system for U.S. dollar transactions. In the final guidelines, the Board has therefore identified those elements as considerations under principle three. The Board does not believe, however, it would be appropriate to create a standardized review process for assessing the financial soundness of every operator, or to establish expectations that only certain information related to the financial condition of the operator will be relevant as part of assessing a joint account request. Ultimately, the specific considerations necessary to determine whether an operator is financially sound will vary depending on the nature of the private-sector arrangement and the individual entity.
The final guidelines no longer discuss an assessment of the financial soundness of each participant under principle four (absent a potential for further analysis of any atypical risk presented by a potential joint account holder, as discussed under the first guideline). The Board believes that the Reserve Banks already apply appropriate controls to account holders as necessary to mitigate risks that may result from financially unsound institutions. Moreover, the financial soundness of participating depository institutions is already considered by a depository institution's supervisor. In light of these various factors, the Board does not believe it is necessary to assess each individual joint account holder's financial soundness as part of evaluating a request.
Lastly, the explanatory paragraphs to the final guidelines provide that the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank at the time of account opening, or any time thereafter, may include obligations relating to, or conditions or limitations on, use of the joint account as necessary to limit any operational, credit, legal, or reputational risks posed to the Reserve Banks.
5.
Under the fifth proposed principle, a private-sector arrangement should not cause undue credit, settlement, or other risks to the efficient operation of other payment systems or the payment system as a whole. In evaluating a joint account request under this proposed principle, the Board proposed that the operational and financial interaction with, and use of, other payment systems would be relevant, as would the extent to which use of the joint account may restrict a portion of funds from being available to support intraday liquidity needs of depository institutions for other payment and settlement activity.
Three commenters addressed the fifth proposed principle. While all three commenters were generally supportive, two of the commenters suggested modifications to the proposed principle and its considerations. As discussed above, the Board received one comment from a national payments association under principle five that the Board believed was relevant for evaluation under principle three. One depository institution commenter suggested that the principle should include an assessment of individual joint account holders' liquidity needs to ensure that the private-sector arrangement does not negatively impact the ability to meet further obligations. The Board does not believe, however, that it would be appropriate to assess the liquidity needs of each individual account holder in considering a joint account request. Joint account holders should be effectively managing their unique liquidity needs, which may change over time. Institutions participating in private-sector arrangements should ensure liquidity management is appropriately robust and quantitative in light of the nature of the arrangement, particularly where its objective is to facilitate faster payments. Moreover, the liquidity of participating depository institutions will likely already be considered by a depository institution's supervisor. However, the Board agrees that issues of liquidity will be a critical consideration in evaluating joint account requests and believes that the overall impact of the private-sector arrangement on liquidity should already be adequately assessed as part of the fifth principle, which includes consideration of the extent to which the use of the joint account may restrict a portion of funds from being available to support liquidity needs of depository institutions for other payment and settlement activity.
In addition, the explanatory paragraphs of the final guidelines provide that the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank at the time of account opening or any time thereafter may include obligations relating to, and conditions or limitations on, use of the joint account to limit risks to financial stability and the implementation of monetary policy (see principle six), as well as other risks that may arise.
6.
Finally, the provision of a joint account could have important implications for monetary policy implementation, particularly if the end-of-day balances in a joint account or joint accounts in the aggregate fluctuate to the extent that they materially affect the demand for or supply of reserve
Four commenters addressed these issues. One commenter suggested that the Board treat balances held in a joint account as reserves. The treatment of joint account balances, however, will depend on the nature of the private-sector arrangement, including the rights and obligations of the parties involved. Determining whether balances held in a joint account qualify as reserves therefore will be assessed for each request individually. Moreover, the determination of whether balances in joint accounts are treated as reserves will not affect the potential need to predict and limit the volatility in the joint accounts. If joint account balances are determined to be reserve balances, then these balances will affect the demand for such balances, which is closely monitored and supplied by the Federal Reserve in a scarce reserve regime. Likewise, if joint account balances are not treated as reserves, they are a factor affecting the supply of reserve balances, meaning, all else equal, movements in joint account balances have similarly sized but opposite effects on the supply of reserve balances, which the Federal Reserve will need to offset to provide the appropriate level of reserves in a scarce reserve regime.
None of the commenters opposed the principle or objected to the potential imposition of limits or controls. One commenter stated that institutions would be able to adequately adjust to any necessary limits or controls placed on the account. Two commenters suggested that any limits or controls be identified prior to opening a joint account, or be included in the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank to provide clarity and certainty to private-sector arrangements. While the Board agrees that providing certainty would be beneficial to private-sector arrangements, limits or controls placed on joint accounts to mitigate monetary policy implications will necessarily depend on the framework in which the Federal Reserve is conducting monetary policy. Under a monetary policy framework where the policy rate is targeted by tightly managing the supply of reserves balances, the magnitude and predictability of daily changes in joint account balances would become important for monetary policy operations, and therefore it may be necessary to limit the volatility or size of a joint account or require advance notice of significant daily changes. However, under a monetary policy framework where the supply of reserve balances far exceeds the demand for reserve balances, joint account balances are likely to have a negligible effect on monetary policy operations, and such controls may not be necessary. The Board does not believe it would be possible to identify the exact limitations and controls that will be needed in all future policy frameworks.
As explained previously, the explanatory paragraphs of the final guidelines provide that the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank at the time of account opening or any time thereafter may include obligations relating to, or conditions or limitations on, use of the joint account to limit risks to financial stability and the implementation of monetary policy, as well as other risks that may arise. Accordingly, the final guidelines have been modified to include only the evaluation considerations under principle six. Finally, the Board has made minor technical changes under principle six for clarity.
7.
In response to the Board's request for comment on any other criteria or information that commenters believed may be relevant to evaluate a joint account request, one national payments association commenter suggested that the final guidelines include separate elements to evaluate a designated agent or operator of a joint account.
Three commenters supported making some level of information public about joint accounts established under the final guidelines. Two commenters noted that certain information should not be made public. One payment system operator commenter stated that confidential information (such as functional, technical, or operational details) should not be made public as it may result in risk or harm to the private-sector arrangement or its participants. Another commenter, a depository institution trade association, stated that
In considering these comments, the Board believes that public announcement of joint accounts could be interpreted by some as an endorsement by the Federal Reserve of the private-sector arrangement or of its safety and soundness. The Board believes it is necessary to avoid any appearance of endorsing a private entity or arrangement using a joint account. The Board also believes that making the disapproval of a joint account arrangement public could result in competitive harm to the entities involved. Therefore, the Board has determined that neither it nor the Reserve Banks intend to announce the opening of individual joint accounts or the corresponding individual private-sector arrangements. The Board believes that the private-sector arrangement will provide sufficient transparency to participants and end users about the method of settlement, including the use of a joint account. This approach is generally consistent with the treatment of other Federal Reserve accounts, for which neither the Board nor the Reserve Banks publish information upon account openings, with limited exceptions.
Consistent with the foregoing, the Board has clarified in the final guidelines that establishment of a joint account by the Reserve Banks is not intended as an endorsement or approval by the Federal Reserve of the payment system established by the private-sector arrangement and does not relieve any party to the private-sector arrangement or end user from conducting its own diligence on the arrangement generally, the associated risks of using the system established by the arrangement, or the acceptability of such risks.
Commenters were generally silent as to additional criteria or information that may be relevant to evaluating joint account requests for U.S. depository institutions to provide services to foreign clearing and settlement arrangements. The final guidelines will generally apply in the event that a request is received related to a foreign clearing or settlement arrangement, but the level of scrutiny and information necessary may vary from domestic arrangements.
Finally, the Board requested comment on other steps or actions the Federal Reserve should consider to facilitate settlement in light of market participants' efforts to develop faster retail payment solutions. One commenter, a payment system operator, suggested that the Board coordinate with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's initiative on evaluating national bank charter applications from financial technology companies that engage in the business of banking. The Board does collaborate with other federal banking agencies on efforts to improve the payment system. Another depository institution trade association commenter recommended that the Federal Reserve continue to foster collaboration among a wide range of payments stakeholders across a broad range of issues in the same model as the Faster Payments Task Force to facilitate payment system improvements. The Board agrees that a collaborative approach has been productive and believes that it will continue to be valuable as the Federal Reserve and industry work to achieve the desired outcomes set forth in the
Another payment service provider commenter suggested that the final guidelines be applied using a risk-based approach to evaluating joint account requests so that smaller private-sector arrangements or new entrants are evaluated in light of their specific volumes and risks. The Board does not believe that it would be prudent to evaluate smaller arrangements or new entrants under less-stringent criteria; an evaluation under the final guidelines should necessarily consider the specific risks posed by each private-sector arrangement. In certain instances, that may mean a smaller private-sector arrangement presents less risk by nature of its size. In other instances, a smaller private-sector arrangement may present significant risks in spite of its size. For these reasons, evaluation under the final guidelines will consider the specific risks posed by a joint account request, regardless of size.
One commenter, a depository institution, asked the Federal Reserve to study how new payment methods have affected the payment system. Two other commenters recommended that the Board strive to balance burdens imposed by the final guidelines against the importance of payment system developments. The Board agrees that ensuring balanced guidelines is important to further the Federal Reserve's objectives of a safe, efficient, and accessible payment system, while avoiding undue burdens that lead to unintended consequences. The Board also agrees that monitoring existing and emerging payment methods provides useful information for achieving those objectives, and Federal Reserve staff will continuously consider developments in the payment system and any corresponding implications.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has adopted six principles and corresponding considerations (collectively, the guidelines) to be used in evaluating requests to the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) for joint accounts intended to facilitate settlement between and among member banks and other eligible depository institutions (collectively depository institutions) participating in private-sector payment systems (private-sector arrangements).
For purposes of these guidelines, a joint account is an account at a Reserve Bank where the rights and liabilities are shared among multiple account holders (joint account holders), that is, institutions that are eligible to open an account with a Reserve Bank. The Board contemplates that under these arrangements, the joint account holders will authorize a single entity to serve as their “agent” in providing instructions to the Reserve Bank at which the account would be held (the account-holding Reserve Bank) with respect to the account. The account-holding Reserve Bank would be authorized to act on any instruction provided by the agent, consistent with the provisions of the joint account agreement. The Board also contemplates that private-sector arrangements using joint accounts might also use an “operator” (which could be the agent of the joint account or a separate entity) for running the arrangement, which may include undertaking various steps in the payments process such as initiation, clearing, settlement, and reconciliation, or establishing rules and governance. “Participants” in the arrangement might
The guidelines broadly outline considerations necessary for evaluating requests, but are not intended to provide assurance that any specific arrangement would be granted a joint account. Every request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with the type and extent of information necessary to evaluate a particular request likely dependent on the complexity of the arrangement. The guidelines apply to both domestic private-sector arrangements and foreign clearing or settlement arrangements. In the event that a request is received related to a foreign clearing or settlement arrangement, the level of scrutiny and information necessary may vary from domestic arrangements.
In addition to the evaluation under the guidelines, the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank may include (at the time of account opening or any time thereafter) obligations relating to, or conditions or limitations on, use of the joint account as necessary to limit operational, credit, legal, or reputational risks posed to the Reserve Banks. The account agreement may also impose obligations relating to, or conditions or limitations on, use of the joint account to limit risks to financial stability and the implementation of monetary policy, as well as other risks that may arise. Obligations, limitations or conditions to limit risks to financial stability, the implementation of monetary policy, or other risks that may arise would be used only as deemed necessary and may include, for example, limits on the level or volatility of account balances and requirements for information on projected balances or volatility of balances. An information requirement might include a notice period within which the agent must notify the account-holding Reserve Bank of shifts in the end-of-day account balances greater than a designated threshold. If the obligations, limitations, or controls are ineffective at mitigating the risks identified or if the obligations, limitations, or controls are breached, the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank might be restricted further or the joint account may be closed if warranted.
Establishment of a joint account by the Reserve Banks under these guidelines does not relieve any participant in the private-sector arrangement or any end user from conducting its own diligence on the arrangement generally, on any associated risks of using the payment system established by the private-sector arrangement, or on the acceptability of such risks. Establishment of a joint account by the Reserve Banks under these guidelines is not an endorsement or approval by the Board or Reserve Banks (collectively the Federal Reserve) of the payment system established by the private-sector arrangement. Moreover, nothing in the Board's guidelines relieves any institution from compliance with obligations imposed by an institution's supervisor.
The following will be used in evaluating requests to the Reserve Banks for joint accounts intended to facilitate settlement between depository institutions participating in private-sector arrangements:
1.
○ Only an institution that is eligible to have a Federal Reserve account under applicable federal statute and Federal Reserve rules, policies, and procedures is able to be a joint account holder. Unless otherwise specified by statute, only those entities that are member banks or meet the definition of a depository institution under section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act are legally able to obtain Federal Reserve accounts and payment services.
○ As part of evaluating any joint account requests, and consistent with Federal Reserve policies and procedures, the account-holding Reserve Bank must approve all joint account holders that are part of a proposed private-sector arrangement. Some institutions may be eligible for a Federal Reserve account but may present atypical risk profiles, such as uninsured institutions. In these cases, a heightened analysis of that institution's participation as a joint account holder may be performed under one or more of the other guidelines.
○ The designated agent or operator of the private-sector arrangement would not need to be a depository institution, assuming it is not a joint account holder.
○ Consistent with the Reserve Banks' deposit-taking authority, a Reserve Bank's obligation with respect to any balance in a joint account will be owed solely to the joint account holders, and no non-account holders may have any rights against the Reserve Bank with respect to the balance. No party other than an account holder shall have a claim against the account-holding Reserve Bank in connection with the operation of the joint account, including any decision related to opening or refusing to open the account.
2.
○ Requestors of a joint account should provide supporting legal analysis as well as the system's rules, agreements, and other governing documents. The legal analysis should consider the application of applicable laws and regulations, such as U.C.C. 4A, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, U.S. sanction programs, Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering requirements or regulations, and other relevant laws and regulations; the attachment risk related to the account; and how the operation of the account would be affected by a participant's insolvency.
3.
○ In addition to any party's supervisory obligations, a private-sector arrangement that uses a joint account approved under these guidelines will be expected to manage risks consistent with the general policy expectations for payment systems outlined within Part I of the Board's
○ The private-sector arrangement should have policies and procedures to minimize disruption to its system when one of its participants, the agent, or the operator fails or in the event of operational failures. The arrangement's rules should also sufficiently
○ Requests for joint accounts involving a financially unsound operator would not be approved. Evaluation may include, among other things, reviewing financial statements of the operator, as well as cash flow projections (including capital and operating expenses).
○ Evaluation under this principle will take into account the applicable supervisory framework for the private-sector arrangement.
○ An evaluation under this principle would assess whether the system is widely available for use by its intended end users, is designed to minimize the risk of disruption (rejection or delay of payments) to end users, and promotes transparency for end users and the public more broadly (for example, by making its operating rules, rulemaking processes, list of participants, or certain network statistics publicly available). Evaluation under this guideline would also assess whether the system creates inefficiencies in payment processes or barriers to interoperability within the U.S. dollar payment system. Also of relevance is whether the private-sector arrangement promotes payment system improvements and innovations and the extent to which the arrangement fosters competition in the payment system (for example between providers of payment services).
○ Finally, the design and rules of the private-sector arrangement, including rules relating to the funding of and disbursements from the joint account, should be consistent with the intended use of the account, such that a participant can only use the balances for the intended purpose of settling payments in the associated system.
4.
○ The agent and the joint account holders should demonstrate an ongoing ability to meet all obligations under the joint account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank.
○ The manner in which the joint account will be used in support of the private-sector arrangement and any anticipated use of Reserve Bank services should be identified.
○ Reserve Banks will not extend overnight or intraday credit to a joint account. The private-sector arrangement should structure its use of the joint account and Reserve Bank services in a manner that seeks to avoid intraday overdrafts. The agent also should demonstrate ways to monitor the joint account on an ongoing basis to avoid overdrafts and to promptly cover any inadvertent overdrafts.
○ Further, the agent should demonstrate the ability to appropriately monitor transactions into and out of the joint account.
5.
○ The private-sector arrangement should not cause undue credit, settlement, or other risks to the efficient operation of other payment systems or the payment system as a whole.
○ The operational and financial interaction with and use of other payment systems should be identified.
○ The extent to which the use of the joint account may restrict a portion of funds from being available to support liquidity needs of depository institutions for other payment and settlement activity will also be considered.
6.
○ Evaluation of the potential monetary policy implications of the use of a joint account will include whether the balance in the joint account would be treated as reserves (that is, treated as available to satisfy any joint account holder's reserve balance requirements or as excess reserves), the expected predictability and volatility of the end-of-day joint account balances, and the potential for the account agreement with the account-holding Reserve Bank to impose limitations on account volatility without affecting the intended function of the arrangement. This evaluation will occur regardless of the current monetary policy implementation framework in place.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Privacy Rule, and of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Safeguards Rule. The attached Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Katherine McCarron (202-326-2333) and Jacqueline Connor (202-326-2844), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 29, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 29, 2017. Write “In the Matter of TaxSlayer, LLC, File No. 1623063” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of TaxSlayer, LLC, File No. 1623063” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC. 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from TaxSlayer, LLC (“TaxSlayer”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission again will review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves TaxSlayer, a company that advertises, offers for sale, sells, and distributes products and services to consumers, including TaxSlayer Online, a browser-based tax return preparation and electronic filing software and service. TaxSlayer Online assists consumers, typically for a fee, in preparing and electronically filing federal and state income tax returns. In 2016, more than 950,000 individuals filed tax returns using TaxSlayer Online.
TaxSlayer Online users create an account by entering a username and password (“login credentials”) on an account creation page. They then input a host of personal information in order to create a tax return, including but not limited to: Name, Social Security number (“SSN”), telephone number, physical address, income, employment status, marital status, identity of dependents, financial assets, financial activities, receipt of government benefits, home ownership, indebtedness, health insurance, retirement information, charitable donations, tax payments, tax refunds, bank account numbers, and payment card numbers.
TaxSlayer Online uses this personal information to prepare tax returns on behalf of customers. Once a tax return is prepared, a customer can file the return electronically through TaxSlayer Online with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and state departments of revenue. If a customer is entitled to a refund, TaxSlayer offers the option of directing the refund into a customer's bank account, or customers may elect to receive their refunds on a prepaid debit card.
The complaint alleges that TaxSlayer became subject to a list validation attack that began in October 2015. List validation attacks occur when attackers use lists of stolen login credentials to attempt to access accounts across a number of Web sites, knowing that consumers often reuse login credentials. In an unknown number of instances, the attackers engaged in tax identity theft by e-filing fraudulent tax returns and diverting the fabricated refunds to themselves.
The Commission's complaint alleges that TaxSlayer failed to comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (“GLB”) Act Privacy Rule in two ways. First, TaxSlayer failed to provide a clear and conspicuous initial privacy notice. TaxSlayer's Privacy Policy was contained towards the end of a long License Agreement, and TaxSlayer did not convey the importance, nature, and relevance of this Privacy Policy to its customers. Second, TaxSlayer failed to deliver the initial privacy notice so that each customer could reasonably be expected to receive actual notice. For example, TaxSlayer did not require customers to acknowledge receipt of the
In addition, the complaint alleges that TaxSlayer engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for sensitive information from consumers, in violation of the GLB Act Safeguards Rule. First, TaxSlayer failed to have a written information security program until November 2015. Second, TaxSlayer failed to conduct a risk assessment, which would have identified reasonably foreseeable risks to the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information, including risks associated with inadequate authentication. Third, TaxSlayer failed to implement information safeguards to control the risks to customer information from inadequate authentication.
The proposed order contains provisions designed to prevent TaxSlayer from engaging in practices similar to those alleged in the complaint. Part I prohibits TaxSlayer from violating any provision of the GLB Act Privacy Rule and Safeguards Rule. Part II of the proposed order requires TaxSlayer to obtain, within the first one hundred eighty (180) days after service of the order and on a biennial basis thereafter for a period of ten (10) years, an assessment and report from a qualified, objective, independent third-party professional, certifying, among other things, that: (1) It has in place a security program that provides protections that meet or exceed the protections required by Part I.B of the order, and (2) its security program is operating with sufficient effectiveness to provide reasonable assurance that the security, confidentiality, and integrity of sensitive consumer information has been protected.
Parts III through VII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to all current and future principals, offers, directors, and LLC managers and directors, and to persons with managerial or supervisory responsibilities relating to Parts I through IV of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status and mandates that TaxSlayer submit an initial compliance report to the FTC. Part V requires TaxSlayer to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part VI mandates that TaxSlayer make available to the FTC information or subsequent compliance reports, as requested. Part VII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form (SF) 1444. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before October 5, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202-969-7207 or email
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 22.406 prescribes labor standards for federally financed and assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA), as well as labor standards for non-construction contracts subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (CWHSSA).
The recordkeeping requirements in this regulation, FAR 22.406, reflect the requirements cleared under OMB control numbers 1235-0023, 1235-0008, and 1235-0018 for 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(i), 5.5(c), and 5.15 (records to be kept by employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)). The regulation at 29 CFR 516 reflects the basic recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the laws administered by the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.
FAR 22.406-3, implements the recordkeeping and information collection requirements prescribed in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(ii) cleared under OMB control number 1235-0023 (also prescribed at 48 CFR 22.406 under OMB control number 9000-0089), by
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman (OPO), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding a new request for an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the OMB a request to review and approve a new information collection requirement regarding OMB Control No: 3090-XXXX; Ombudsman Inquiry/Request Instrument. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before October 5, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Millisa Gary, GSA Procurement/Task & Delivery Order Ombudsman, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Ombudsman, GSA, at telephone 202-501-0699 or via email to
OPO wants to place an online intake Instrument on the GSA Ombudsman's Web page for receiving inquiries from vendors who are currently doing business with, or interested in doing business with GSA. The inquiries will be collected by the GSA Ombudsman and routed to the appropriate office for resolution and/or implementation in the case of recommendations for process or program improvements. Reporting of the data collected will help highlight thematic issues that vendors encounter with GSA acquisition programs, processes or policies, and identify areas where training is needed. The information collected will also assist in identifying and analyzing patterns and trends to help improve efficiencies and lead to improvements in current practices.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary, whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX, Inquiry/Request Instrument, in all correspondence.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from the Quantros Patient Safety Center of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly.
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was applicable at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on August 15, 2017.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from the Quantros Patient Safety Center, a component entity of Quantros Inc., PSO number P0014, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Quantros Patient Safety Center was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on August 15, 2017.
The Quantros Patient Safety Center has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession. More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comments on a request for an extension of an approved information collection entitled, CDC's Fellowship Management System. CDC uses the information collected for processes that aid and enhance the selection of fellowship participants and host sites and to track participant information that helps strengthen the current, emerging, and ever-changing public health workforce.
Written comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0062 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Fellowship Management System (OMB No. 0920-0765, expires 04/30/2018)— Extension—Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development (DSEPD), Center for Surveillance, Education, and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
DSEPD requests a three-year extension to continue use of the CDC Fellowship Management System (FMS) for its electronic applications, host sites, and directory processes that allow individuals to apply to fellowships online, allow public health agencies to submit fellowship assignment proposals online, and track applicant and alumni information. CDC uses the FMS application module to collect, process, and manage data from nonfederal applicants seeking training or public health support services through CDC fellowships, under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0920-0765. FMS is key to CDC's ability to protect the public's health by supporting training opportunities that strengthen the public health workforce. In 2015, OMB approval for revision was granted for FMS for a 3-year period. Since 2015, OMB has approved nonsubstantive changes to FMS information collection requests under the same OMB control number, 0920-0765. These changes were made to accurately reflect evolving fellowship eligibility requirements, provide clarification of existing questions, efficiently and effectively accommodate changing needs of host organizations, and to account for the addition of 150 new applicants to the Science Ambassadors Fellowship. A 3-year extension will allow all fellowship applicants, public health agencies that host fellowship participants, and fellowship alumni the continued use of FMS for submission of electronic data.
The mission of DSEPD is to improve health outcomes through a competent, sustainable, and empowered public health workforce. Professionals in public health, epidemiology, medicine, economics, information science, veterinary medicine, nursing, public policy, and other related professionals seek opportunities, through CDC fellowships, to broaden their knowledge, and skills to improve the science and practice of public health. CDC fellows are assigned to state, tribal, local, and territorial public health agencies; federal government agencies, including CDC and Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) operational divisions, such as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; and to nongovernmental organizations, including academic institutions, tribal organizations, and private public health organizations.
FMS allows CDC to electronically collect and process fellowship applications, fellowship assignment proposals, and fellowship alumni information from nonfederal persons. FMS is a flexible and robust data management system that is standardized and tailored for each CDC fellowship, collecting only the minimum amount of information required, thereby streamlining decision processes for CDC and reducing burden for respondents. Respondent types vary depending on fellowship eligibility requirements, and responses to FMS questions are voluntary. CDC uses the information FMS gathers to identify participants for its fellowship programs and effectively address each program's needs and the needs of the public. By allowing online submissions of applications to fellowships and proposals for fellowship assignments, FMS can track fellowship applicants, alumni, and public health service agency employees seeking to host and work with fellows, all in one integrated database.
The annual burden table reflects OMB-approved changes since 2015, including the 150 new respondents applying to Science Ambassadors and changes for public health agency representatives. No changes were made relative to the FMS Alumni Directory or the FMS Host Site Module. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 5, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 milligrams (mg) and 1.25 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Bronwen Blass, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6228, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5092.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, is the subject of NDA 021443, held by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. (Teva), and was initially approved on May 10, 2004. ENJUVIA is indicated for treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause and treatment of moderate to severe vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse, as well as symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy due to menopause.
In 2016, Teva notified FDA that ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, were being discontinued, and FDA moved those drug products to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Foley & Lardner submitted a citizen petition dated March 8, 2017 (Docket No. FDA-2017-P-1459), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that these products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that these drug products were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to ENJUVIA (estrogens, conjugated synthetic B) tablets, 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Content of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Document Using Structured Product Labeling.” This draft guidance is being issued in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to require that certain submissions under the FD&C Act and the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) be submitted in electronic format, beginning no earlier than 24 months after issuance of final guidance on electronic format for submissions. The draft guidance describes how FDA plans to implement the requirements for the electronic submission of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) documents in certain submissions under new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, and biologics license applications, beginning no earlier than 24 months after issuance of the final guidance.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 5, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)). Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Adam Kroetsch, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 51, Rm. 1168, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3842; or Aaron Sherman, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 51, Rm.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Content of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Document Using Structured Product Labeling; Draft Guidance for Industry.”
FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144), amended the FD&C Act to add section 745A (21 U.S.C. 379k-1), entitled “Electronic Format for Submissions.” Section 745A(a)(1) of the FD&C Act requires that submissions under section 505(b), (i), or (j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b), (i), or (j)) and submissions under section 351(a) or (k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a) or (k)) be submitted to FDA in electronic format no earlier than 24 months after FDA issues final guidance on electronic format for submissions. In accordance with section 745A(a)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is issuing this draft guidance, announcing its determination that submission types identified in the guidance must be submitted electronically in the format specified in the guidance beginning 24 months after the issuance of the final guidance.
This draft guidance (and the technical specification documents it references) describes how certain REMS documents will be required to be submitted in electronic format using Structured Product Labeling (SPL) as outlined in the FDA “Structured Product Labeling (SPL) Implementation Guide with Validation Procedures” (available at
Development of this guidance was facilitated by completion of the “Pharmacy Systems Under REMS Project: Standardizing REMS Information for Inclusion Into Pharmacy Systems Using Structured Product Labeling (SPL).” More information on this project—one of four predefined priority projects that are a part of the larger REMS Integration Initiative—can be found in the report “Standardizing and Evaluating Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS)” (available at
This notice 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 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice, establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is establishing a public docket to collect comments related to the pediatric post-marketing pharmacovigilance and drug utilization reviews of products posted between March 11, 2017, and September 12, 2017, on FDA's Web site but not presented at the September 12, 2017, Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting. These reviews are intended to be available for review and comment by members of the PAC, interested parties (such as academic researchers, regulated industries, consortia, and patient groups), and the general public.
Submit either electronic or written comments by October 20, 2017.
You may submit your comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submission as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Kenneth Quinto, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5145, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-2221, email:
FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our Nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
FDA is establishing a public docket, Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4866, to receive input on pediatric post-marketing pharmacovigilance and drug utilization reviews posted between March 11, 2017, and September 12, 2017, available on FDA's Web site at
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Commercialization Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the Patents and Patent Applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before September 20, 2017 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Commercialization Patent License should be directed to: Jaime M. Greene, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, NCI Technology Transfer Center, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rm. 1E530 MSC 9702, Bethesda, MD 20892-9702 (for business mail), Rockville, MD 20850-9702 Telephone: (240)-276-5530;
EP Patent 1999277 (Application No. 07753436.0) filed 19 March 2007, titled “Apparatus for biosensor microarrays based on carbon nanotube transistors having biological probe materials, method for its production and method of electronically detecting a biological target material”, validated in FR, DE, IE, and GB, HHS Reference No.: E-056-2007/0-EP-04;
Australia Patent 2007227415 (Application No. 2007227415) filed 10/16/08, titled “Apparatus for microarray binding sensors having biological probe materials using carbon nanotube transistors”, HHS Reference No.: E-056-2007/0-AU-05;
Canada Patent 2646465 (Application No. 2646465) filed 03/19/07, titled “Apparatus for microarray binding sensors having biological probe materials using carbon nanotube transistors”, HHS Reference No.: E-056-2007/0-CA-06;
Japan Patent 5048752 (Application No. 2009-501490) filed 03/19/07, titled “Apparatus for microarray binding sensors having biological probe materials using carbon nanotube transistors”, HHS Reference No.: E-056-2007/0-JP-07;
EP Patent 2570490 (Application No. 12160369.0) filed 03/19/07, titled “Apparatus for microarray binding sensors having biological probe materials using carbon nanotube transistors”, validated in FR, DE, and GB. HHS Reference No.: E-056-2007/0-EP-08;
U.S. Patent 8,017,938 (Application No. 11/723,369), filed 19 March 2007, titled “Apparatus for Microarray Binding Sensors Having Biological Probe Materials Using Carbon Nanotube Transistors”, HHS Ref. No.: E-056-2007/0-US-03; and
PCT Application No. PCT/US2007/06809, filed 19 March 2007, now abandoned, titled “Apparatus for Microarray Binding Sensors Having Biological Probe Materials Using Carbon Nanotube Transistors”, HHS Ref. No.: E-056-2007/0-PCT-02.
U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/743,524, filed 17 March 2006, now abandoned, titled “Apparatus for Microarray DNA Binding Sensors Using Carbon Nanotube Transistors”, HHS Ref. No.: E-056-2007/0-US-01.
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to: “The development of an FDA-approved or cleared
This technology discloses a microarray apparatus that uses carbon nanotubes transistors and electronic circuitry to quantitatively measure changes in gene expression levels. Typically, microarrays are microscope glass slides spotted with thousands of different genes. The array does not have built-in reader, and the detection is performed using a fluorescence scanner after hybridization with fluorescent-tagged target DNA. For simple nucleic acid detection, current methods rely upon various combinations of enzymatic amplification of nucleic acids and fluorescent labeling of targets, which entail enzymatic manipulation of the nucleic acid being tested and chemical labeling, respectively. These methods are both time consuming and afford limited sensitivity. In cases where microarray technology is used as a tool for monitoring gene expression patterns and profiling of micro RNA (miRNA) in normal and cancerous tissue, quantification of changes has typically been optically-based. While this technique is highly sensitive, use of optical methods impedes progress in both system miniaturization and in direct interfacing with data collection electronics.
To overcome the limitation of current microarray technologies, the inventors have developed a highly sensitive microarray apparatus that uses carbon nanotube transistors for the electronic detection of biological probe-target binding. The present invention provides an apparatus for biological target material detection which uses an array of carbon nanotube transistors, with each being operated as a field effect transistor. A single carbon nanotube transistor is associated with a distinct biological probe material. The current versus voltage characteristics or transconductance between the source and drain electrodes is measured before and after a binding event between the biological probe and target materials. By using a mathematical relationship, the exact amount of target binding can be extracted. Importantly, the present apparatus offers a significant advantage in simplicity of protocol as the method used therewith does not require chemical or enzymatic manipulation of the target being detected.
This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Commercialization Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) will publish periodic summaries of propose projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Margaret Beckwith, Office of Cancer Content, Office of Communications and Public Liaison (OCPL), 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-6600 or email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written
There are currently 552 genetics professionals listed in the directory. Approximately 30-60 new professionals are added to the directory each year. The applicants are nurses, physicians, genetic counselors, and other professionals who provide services related to cancer genetics. The information collected on the application form includes name, professional qualifications, practice locations, and the area of specialization. The information is updated annually using a Web-based update mailer that mirrors the application form.
The NCI Cancer Genetics Services Directory is a unique resource for cancer patients and their families who are looking for information about their family risk of cancer and genetic counseling. Collecting applicant information and verifying it annually by using the NCI Cancer Genetics Services Directory Web-based Application Form and Update Mailer is important for providing this information to the public and for keeping it current.
OMB approval is requested for 3 year. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 180.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
Availability for licensing U.S. Government owned intellectual property for commercial development.
Licensing information and copies of the patent applications listed below may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing. Technology description follows.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the need to continue collecting information from individuals and States in order to provide and/or administer disaster assistance through the Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Programs.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, email address
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Act) is the legal basis for FEMA to provide disaster related assistance and services to individuals who apply for disaster assistance benefits in the event of a federally
The delivery of the ONA provision of IHP is contingent upon the State/Tribe choosing an administrator for the assistance. States/Tribes satisfy the selection of an administrator of ONA by completing the Administrative Option Agreement (FEMA Form 010-0-11), which establishes a plan for the delivery of ONA. This agreement establishes a partnership with FEMA and inscribes the plan for the delivery of disaster assistance. The agreement is used to identify the State/Tribe's proposed level of support and participation during disaster recovery.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Stephan A. Martin, Director, Assisted Housing Oversight Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; 202-708-3000; email:
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Cheryl Appline, Director, Office of Oversight and Accountability (OOA), Office of Housing Counseling, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Five Points Plaza Building, 40 Marietta Street, Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone 678-732-2696 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Appline.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Sheba Scott, Housing Program Manager, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Scott.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Sylvia S. Chatman, Housing Program Manager, Office of Multifamily Production,
Copies of available documents to be submitted to OMB may be found at:
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Given that the definitions of “Principal” and “Affiliate” no longer appear at 24 CFR 200.215 following changes to HUD's Previous Participation Rule, HUD proposes to add the prior definition of Principal and Affiliate from 24 CFR 200.215 as defined terms.
HUD proposes to reincorporate the definition of “Residual Receipts” into the form. The term means certain funds which are restricted in their use by
HUD proposes to add alternative language for bifurcated notes for consistency with the MAP Guide policy allowing for such financing structures.
HUD proposes to add a new paragraph concerning No Material Adverse Changes for consistency with similar language in the Firm Commitment templates issued through Housing Notice 2016-06.
HUD proposes the attachment of a new exhibit for the Reserve for Replacement funding schedule generated during the mortgage insurance application stage and attached to the Firm Commitment. The schedule represents the amounts that lenders must collect from borrowers during insured loan servicing unless other amounts are approved in writing by HUD pursuant to Program Obligations.
HUD proposes to add a restriction formerly contained in the Instructions of Borrower's Counsel relating to lenders' due diligence obligations concerning certificates, permits, licenses, etc., that is more appropriate for the Lender's Certificate.
HUD proposes to add a new section for transactions involving cash-collateralized tax-exempt bonds combined with 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits for consistency with the MAP Guide and current HUD practice.
HUD proposes to add a new paragraph concerning No Material Adverse Changes for consistency with similar language in the Firm Commitment templates issued through Housing Notice 2016-06.
HUD proposes the attachment of a new exhibit for Reserve for Replacement funding schedule generated during the mortgage insurance application stage and attached to the Firm Commitment. The schedule represents the amounts that lenders must collect from borrowers during insured loan servicing unless other amounts are approved in writing by HUD pursuant to Program Obligations.
HUD proposes to add a restriction formerly contained in the Instructions to Opinion of Borrower's Counsel relating to lenders' due diligence obligations concerning certificates, permits, licenses, etc., that is more appropriate for the Lender's Certificate.
HUD proposes to add a new section for transactions involving cash-collateralized tax-exempt bonds combined with 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits for consistency with the MAP Guide and current HUD practice.
HUD proposes to add a new certification moved from the Instructions to Opinion of Borrower's Counsel relating to lender consent for any secondary financing.
Completion of construction certification was enhanced to have the Borrower certify to the level of craftsmanship used to complete the repairs.
The following certifications were typically given separately from the Certificate of Borrower and collected at closing: Certification of Schedule of Accounts Payable, Certification of Rent Roll, Certification of Tenant Security Deposits. These certifications have now been incorporated into this document in order to reduce the number of separate documents collected at closing.
HUD proposes separate paragraphs related to bond, tax credit, secondary financing, and Public Entity Agreement (PEA) for clarification. The definition of PEA now includes public secondary financing; private secondary financing is a separate paragraph. There are separate opinions concerning supremacy of Primary/Supporting Loan for each of these matters.
HUD proposes to add a new paragraph under documents reviewed to clarify (as stated in existing Instructions) that all transaction documents must be included.
HUD proposes to add a new paragraph under opinions for required state or deal specific opinions.
HUD proposes that Borrower's Counsel must review all organizational documents within Borrower's organizational structure, as is legally necessary, to establish the authority of the signatory executing transaction documents on behalf of Borrower and to give the authorization opinion. Also, HUD proposes to add a definition for 2nd tier entity foreign status certificate.
HUD proposes to add a disclosure exception in confirmation (d) where another attorney in Borrower's Counsel's law firm has an interest in the subject matters of the Opinion. Previously the conflict/identity of interest had to be disclosed but it was unclear how to disclose. HUD proposes to add language that counsel must confirm compliance with applicable ethics rules rather than issuing a separate ethics opinion.
HUD proposes to include litigation “threatened in writing” as part of the litigation disclosures.
HUD proposes to add a definition of “Primary Loan Documents” to include HUD loan documents but not bond, tax credit, secondary financing, and supporting documents to ensure the supremacy opinions regarding bond, tax credit, and secondary financing are clear that the Primary Loan Documents control.
HUD has reformatted this document for ease of reading along with adding section headings. There is no longer a separate instructions page as that caused confusion in the past. HUD proposes to revise the document to be a signed agreement that is attached to the underlying ground lease/lease, rather than an unsigned addendum. Additionally, recognition of HUD lease requirements formerly in the recitals are now proposed as part of the actual agreement.
The proposed document has been further revised to provide two different options for the property interest being leased for consistency with new MAP Guide: Option 1, landlord owns the fee interest in the land and tenant/borrower owns the building and improvements (this is the traditional structure found in
HUD proposes to add minimum requirements if a memo of lease is recorded instead of the entire ground lease, subject to state law requirements. This should establish greater uniformity with respect to different practices in different HUD offices.
The document now memorializes an existing but previously separate HUD requirement that landlords provide an estoppel certificate. HUD further proposes a bracketed option for deletion of the HUD option to purchase the fee estate when authorized in writing by HUD pursuant to Program Obligations, consistent with the new MAP Guide.
Lastly, HUD proposes to add a clause to prohibit merger of the fee and leasehold estates without HUD consent, for the protection of HUD. This is a fairly typical ground lease provision.
HUD proposes that this particular form will only be used for public, secondary lenders. HUD proposes a separate subordination form for private, subordinate lenders (see below).
HUD proposes to add brackets to certain provisions to accommodate secondary financing that comes in the form of forgivable loans. HUD proposes to add a sentence to memorialize Senior Lender's consent to the Subordinate Loan pursuant to the MAP Guide.
HUD proposes to add certain required language from the MAP Guide that was previously omitted. HUD also proposes to add language from the Surplus Cash Note that is required by the MAP Guide. HUD further proposes to include required HUD language to be inserted into the underlying promissory note so that Surplus Cash Note does not also need to be used. This should resolve inconsistent guidance and practice with respect to the form of note to use with public secondary financing that is secured.
HUD proposes to remove the requirement that public, subordinate lenders agree that their lien be extinguished by deed in lieu of foreclosure. This is a concession to state and local housing finance agencies that have raised numerous objections to this provision over the last 2.5 years.
HUD proposes a change to the prohibition against foreclosure of subordinate mortgages. Secondary financing lenders were previously prohibited from pursuing foreclosure in the event of a default under their loan documents. As an accommodation to public secondary financing lenders, Housing proposes to allow such public lenders to pursue their foreclosure remedies after a standstill period of 180 days. Note that foreclosure for a monetary event of default will still not be allowed while the loan is insured or HUD-held, given that that repayment obligations during this time are limited to 75% of available Surplus Cash. Consequently, public subordinate lender foreclosure can only occur for covenant events of default, such as for violations of use and affordability restrictions.
This is an entirely new form. It replaces the Secondary Financing Rider found in the FHA Multifamily Program Closing Guide that was previously used for secured, private secondary financing. This new form is largely modeled after the Subordination Agreement, HUD-92420M, which will become the form used with public secondary financing lenders.
Residual Receipts Note (Nonprofit Borrowers) (HUD-91710M) & Residual Receipts Note (Limited Dividend Borrowers) (HUD-91712M) will be merged into one form of note going forward. For new transactions, Housing doesn't underwrite NP or LD owners differently and so there is no longer an FHA-driven basis for residual receipts accounts. This was discussed in a public FAQ dated 6/18/2015 (highlighting that borrower's nonprofit status no longer triggers the requirement of residual receipts). However, the existing forms will continue to be made available for existing projects.
HUD proposes to add language that the document supersedes conflicting provisions in the AIA Document A201 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, for consistency with the FHA Multifamily Program Closing Guide.
HUD proposes revisions that are necessary to permit the form to work with new 2016 ALTA/NSPS standards as discussed in an FAQ from earlier this year. Additionally, the proposed revision to page one of the document isolates the instructions to make it easier for surveyors to understand HUD requirements and how to complete the form.
HUD proposes to remove the term “Non-critical” throughout, in order to recognize the MAP Guide policy change to allow certain accessibility corrections to be paid from this escrow after initial/final closing.
HUD is eliminating this form from the Collection of Information and use in the Multifamily programs, as borrower entities can no longer serve as their own general contractors and remain in compliance with HUD's regulatory single asset entity and administrative requirements.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions. Please note that HUD will not
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on federally listed American burying beetle incidental take permit applications. The applicants anticipate American burying beetle take as a result of impacts to habitat the species uses for breeding, feeding, and sheltering in Oklahoma. The take would be incidental to the applicants' activities associated with oil and gas well field and pipeline infrastructure (gathering, transmission, and distribution), including geophysical exploration (seismic), construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation. If approved, the permits would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicants' incidental take permit (ITP) applications by one of the following methods. Please refer to the proposed permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Review Division, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If approved, the permits would be issued to the applicants under the
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications under the ICP, for incidentally taking the federally listed American burying beetle. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Applicant requests a permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Applicant requests a permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Boise District RAC will meet on September 14, 2017, and on November 17, 2017.
Both meetings of the Boise District RAC will take place at the BLM Boise District Office, 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705.
Michael Williamson, BLM Boise District, Idaho; 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83705; 208-384-3393;
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho.
The September 14 meeting will begin at 7:00 a.m. and end no later than 5:00 p.m. and will involve a field tour of several locations throughout the Four Rivers Field Office. The public comment period will take place from 7:02 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. During this meeting, the Boise District RAC will visit locations to discuss the Four Rivers Field Office Resource Management Plan, the Paradigm Fuel Break Project, herbicide environmental analysis, and other field office issues. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements. The public will need to provide their own transportation if they wish to accompany the field trip.
The November 17 meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end no later than 4:00 p.m. The public comment period will take place from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. During this meeting, the Boise District RAC will receive updates on the Wild Horse and Burro program, travel management planning, Fire program, Soda Fire rehabilitation, Tri-State fuel break project, and other field office updates. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements.
RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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.
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The Twin Falls District RAC will meet on September 27, 2017.
The Twin Falls District RAC will meet at the BLM Twin Falls District Office, 2878 Addison Ave. E., Twin Falls, ID 83301.
Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District Office, Idaho, 2878 Addison Ave. E., Twin Falls, ID 83301, 208-736-2352, email at
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the September 27 meeting, the RAC will convene at 9:00 a.m. and will receive an overview of the 2017 fire season, learn about the potential for Unmanned Aircraft Systems use for resource management, discuss travel management planning taking place around the Twin Falls District, and receive an update on the Cedar Fields Environmental Impact Statement. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements as well as online at
RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council at the address provided above. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and Recreation RAC will meet as indicated below.
The Idaho Falls District RAC will meet on September 12 and 13, 2017.
The Idaho Falls District RAC will meet at the BLM Pocatello Field Office, 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, Idaho 83204.
Sarah Wheeler, Idaho Falls District, Idaho, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401, 208-524-7550, email at
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho.
The September 12th meeting will begin with new member orientation at 10:00 a.m. At 1:00 p.m., the full RAC will convene. The Recreation RAC will hear a fee-increase proposal from the Caribou-Targhee National Forest for five cabins on the Soda Springs and Montpelier Ranger Districts. Other topics will include items affecting the Pocatello Field Office such as phosphate mining, ongoing land health assessments, and travel management planning. A tour of a phosphate mine is scheduled for September 13, 2017. Limited space is available for the public to join the tour. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance (
Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements. The agenda will be available online at
The RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council at the address provided above. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Public comment period for this meeting will take place from 1:00-1:30 p.m. on September 12, 2017. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please 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.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The New Jersey State Museum has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the New Jersey State Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the New Jersey State Museum at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Dr. Gregory D. Lattanzi, Bureau of Archaeology & Ethnology, New Jersey State Museum, 205 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08625, telephone (609) 984-9327, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, NJ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the New Jersey State Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Sometime after 1868, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were collected by Mr. Charles A. Philhower of Westfield, NJ. The human remains were donated to Rutgers University, Special Collections and Library and, in 1972, transferred to the New Jersey State Museum as a permanent loan. In 2010, the Philhower collection was permanently accessioned into the New Jersey State Museum. The human remains consist of a hair lock and scalp representing one male of indeterminate age. A note accompanying the scalp lock reads “Taken from the head of a Pawnee Indian by an Indian wagon driver, Alapthe, along the old Santa Fe Trail near Wagon Mound in the center of New Mexico, year 1868.” No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the New Jersey State Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Gregory D. Lattanzi, Bureau of Archaeology & Ethnology, New Jersey State Museum, 205 West State Street, Trenton, NJ 08625, telephone (609) 984-9327, email
The New Jersey State Museum is responsible for notifying the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement (USFWS OLE), has completed an inventory of human remains and an associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request to the USFWS OLE. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary object to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the USFWS OLE at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Steve Oberholtzer, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Mountain-Prairie Region, P.O. Box 25486—DFC, Denver, CO 80225, telephone (303) 236-7893, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the USFWS OLE. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from Ontario County, NY.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the USFWS OLE professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Onondaga Nation; Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and Tuscarora Nation, as well as the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules & Regulations. The Oneida Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin) deferred to the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee. The Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma) deferred to the Cayuga Nation and the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee. The Cayuga Nation; Oneida Nation of New York; and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York) were invited to consult but declined to participate.
On an unknown date, human remains consisting of 80 loose teeth, representing, at minimum, 12 individuals (seizure-item number 817879-1) were removed from the Alva Reed Farm, Richmond Mills (Hne 105-4) or the site known as the Reed Fort or Richmond Mills site, all of which are located in Ontario County, NY. The ages of the individuals represented by the dentition are 11 to 12 years; 14 to 15 years; 6 to 6
On an unknown date, human remains consisting of 22 loose teeth, representing, at minimum, 5 individuals (seizure-item number 817890-2) were removed from an unknown location in the Finger Lakes region of New York, and more likely than not in Ontario County, NY. Adults and children of both sexes are represented. The age of one child is 9 or 10 years. Five teeth, which represent two individuals, have green copper oxide staining. This type of staining is often seen in Protohistoric and historic burials. Prominent shoveling and double-shoveling are indicative of Native American descent.
On an unknown date, human remains consisting of 53 loose teeth, representing, at minimum, 8 individuals (seizure-item number 817890-5) were removed from an unknown location in the Finger Lakes region of New York, and more likely than not in Ontario County, NY. Adults and children of both sexes are represented. The age of one child is 8 to 8
On May 9, 2002, as part of a criminal investigation, the USFWS OLE purchased a display case containing what was suspected to be Native American human remains (seizure-item number 817879-1). The display case contained what appeared to be human teeth and a bone rondel. The human remains were being sold by an antique store in the Finger Lakes region of New York. On June 26, 2002, as part of the same investigation, the USFWS OLE seized further items suspected to be Native American human remains (seizure-item numbers 817890-2 and 817890-5), which were being held by a private individual, who also supplied the antiques store with the previously purchased human remains. The individual offered these items for sale to the USFWS OLE. After lengthy litigation regarding the case, the Department of Justice transferred the items to the USFWS OLE for NAGPRA compliance.
The Reed Farm site suggests a Protohistoric or historic time frame and, based on historical evidence, are believed to represent early historic Seneca villages. Archeological evidence indicates that the Owasco culture occupied central and eastern New York and the Glaciated Alleghany Plateau during the Woodland Stage (1000 B.C.—A.D. 1600). Around A.D. 1600, the Owasco culture underwent a transition. Between A.D. 1450 and 1600, diagnostic characteristics indicative of the Seneca culture begin to become evident in the archeological record. Seneca occupation of Ontario County, NY, is well-documented. From the early 16th century until the American Revolution, the Seneca occupied a region between the Genesee River and Canandaigua Lake, which includes Livingston and Ontario Counties, NY, as well as the southern portion of Monroe County, NY. Today, the Seneca are represented by three federally recognized Indian Tribes: The Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); and Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York).
Officials of the USFWS OLE have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum of 25 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary object and the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); and Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary object should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Steve Oberholtzer, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Mountain-Prairie Region, P.O. Box 25486—DFC, Denver, CO 80225, telephone (303) 236-7893, email
The USFWS OLE is responsible for notifying the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin); Oneida Nation of New York; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma); Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); Tuscarora Nation; and the Haudenosaunee Standing Committee on Burial Rules & Regulations that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, have corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, originally published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (ASM). The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a location within the boundaries of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Navajo County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects the minimum number of individuals and number of associated funerary objects originally published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
In the
In the
In the years 1963 through 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 1,023 individuals were removed from the Grasshopper Pueblo site AZ P:14:1(ASM), in Navajo County, AZ, as a result of legally authorized excavations conducted by the University of Arizona Archaeological Field School. Archeological collections from the site were brought to the museum at the end of each field season. No known individuals were identified. The 10,418 associated funerary objects are 710 animal bones, 2 animal skeletons, 1 antler wrench, 9 antler artifacts, 9 lots of beads of unidentified material, 21 bird bones, 1 bird effigy pendant, 6 bird skeletons, 1 bird skull, 31 bone artifacts, 53 bone awls, 9 bone awl fragments, 6 lots of bone beads, 2 bone needles, 47 bone rings, 1 bone spatula, 1 bone tool, 1 bone wand, 9 lots of botanical material, 2 ceramic artifacts, 719 ceramic bowls, 8 ceramic bowl fragments, 2 ceramic canteens, 1 ceramic figurine fragment, 223 ceramic jars, 7 ceramic jar fragments, 1 ceramic ladle, 4 ceramic mugs, 1 ceramic pendant, 9 ceramic pitchers, 2 ceramic plates, 1 ceramic platter, 3 ceramic scoops, 4,960 ceramic sherds, 7 ceramic sherd artifacts, 27 ceramic vessels, 7 ceramic vessel fragments, 21 chipped stone cores, 2 chipped stone drills, 2 chipped stone fire-cracked rocks, 2,233 chipped stone flakes, 1 chipped stone scraper, 1 clay sample, 14 crystals, 22 flotation samples, 10 fossils, 3 ground stones, 16 hammerstones, 1 handstone, 17 manos, 2 mano fragments, 8 lots of matting, 45 minerals, 3 mortars, 1 mosaic shell, 4 lots of organic material, 96 pebbles, 2 pecking stones, 12 pendants, 18 polishing stones, 6 pollen samples, 57 quartz crystals, 12 lots of raw material, 5 shaft straighteners, 111 shells, 3 lots of shell and stone beads, 7 shell artifacts, 1 shell artifact fragment, 32 lots of shell beads, 49 shell bracelets, 6 shell bracelet fragments, 25 shell pendants, 3 shell pendant fragments, 12 shell rings, 62 shell tinklers, 9 snail shells, 2 soil impressions, 58 soil samples, 14 stone artifacts, 1 stone axe, 8 lots of stone beads, 3 stone blades, 1 stone bowl, 1 stone disk, 6 stone figurines, 9 stone knives, 2 stone pendants, 257 stone projectile points, 7 stone scrapers, 2 stone shaft smoothers, 4 stone slabs, 12 tree ring samples, 5 lots of turquoise beads, 112 turquoise pendants, 58 turquoise tesserae, 1 lot of unidentified material, 1 lot of unidentified organic material, 4 wood fragments, 9 worked and unworked bones, and 3 worked stone flakes.
In the
In the
Pursuant to 25 U.S.C 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1,023 individuals or Native American ancestry.
In the
Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 10,418 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as a part of the death rite or ceremony.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The Arizona State Museum is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian Tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation
Lineal descendants or representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from archeological sites in Jackson and Marshall Counties, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Guntersville Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding these excavations and sites may be found in a report, “An Archaeological Survey of Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama,” by William S. Webb and Charles G. Wilder. The human remains and associated funerary objects excavated from the sites listed in this notice have been in the physical custody of the AMNH at the University of Alabama since excavation, but are under the control of TVA.
From March to April of 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from the Hardin site (1JA27) in Jackson County, AL, after TVA acquired the site on October 16, 1936. Excavations revealed two primary occupations during the Late Woodland Flint River phase (A.D. 500-1000) and the Mississippian Henry Island phase (A.D. 1200-1450). The culturally affiliated human remains are from the Henry Island phase. The human remains include adults, juveniles, and infants of female and indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 11 associated funerary objects include 2 Bell Plain sherds; 1 Carthage Incised rim sherd; 1 conch shell cup; 1 Etowah Complicated Stamped jar; 1 Mississippi Plain bowl; 1 Mississippi Plain composite jar; 1 Mississippi Plain standard jar; 1 Moundville Engraved sherd; 1 Mulberry Creek Plain hemispherical bowl; and 1 Nashville Negative Painted bottle.
From January to June of 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 19 individuals were removed from the Saulty and Riley site (1JA28) in Jackson County, AL, after TVA purchased the site on October 16, 1936. Site 1JA28 was composed of both a village and adjacent mound with Woodland (Flint River phase) and Mississippian occupations identified. The culturally affiliated human remains are from the Henry Island phase (circa A.D. 1200-1450). The human remains include adults, juveniles, and children of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 190 associated funerary objects include 4 Bell Plain sherds; 1 Bell Plain jar; 4 bone awls or Fids; 1 Carthage Incised bowl; 2 clay earspools; 3 pieces of cut mica; 1 stone discoidal; 2 mussel shells; 7 Mississippi Plain jars; 145 Mississippi Plain sherds; 9 Mississippi Plain bowl sherds; 1 Mississippi Plain effigy jar; 1 Mississippi Plain bowl; 1 Moundville Incised, var. Snows Bend jar; 1 Moundville Incised, var. Carrolton jar; 2 Mulberry Creek Plain, var. Hamilton sherds; 3 shell gorgets; 1 eroded shell-tempered sherd; and 1 Wright Check Stamped sherd.
From September of 1938 to January of 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 48 individuals were removed from the Laws site (1MS100) on Pine Island in Marshall County, AL, after TVA purchased the site on April 21, 1937. Excavations began at the levee adjacent to the river and proceeded by both vertical slicing and horizontal excavations. There appear to have been at least four occupations at this site, including a pre-ceramic period with steatite vessels; a village using limestone-tempered pottery during the Flint River phase (A.D. 500-1000); a late Mississippian occupation using shell-tempered ceramics and rectilinear wall trench structures (Crow Creek phase, A.D. 1500-1700); and the Euro-American trade period (circa A.D. 1670-1715). The human remains are from the last two occupations and include adults, juveniles, and children of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 32,239 associated funerary objects include 21 bark container fragments; 8 bark pouch fragments; 1 Bell Plain red-filmed bowl, 1 biface fragment; 5 bone beads; 2 dog canines; 3 botanical fragments; 14 brass arm band fragments; 2 brass arm cuffs; 55 brass arm cuff fragments; 352 brass beads; 23 brass bells; 6 brass disks; 16 brass fragments; 1 brass ring; 9 brass ring fragments; 3 brass sheet fragments; 8 brass spherical buttons; 1 brass square; 10 brass tinkler cones; 2 buckskin fragments; 5 buckskin pouch fragments; 1 burnishing stone; 6 charred cane fragments; 1 chipped stone drill; 29 drum tooth beads; 1 stone effigy pipe; 2 pieces of fired clay; 29,965 glass beads; 1 glass mirror; 1 ground limonite; 145 iron and brass wire bracelets; 718 iron bracelet fragments; 2 iron buckle fragments; 2 iron ring fragments; 56 iron wire fragments; 4 modified bones; 1 lead musket ball; 7 pieces of shell; 1 red pigment; 735 shell beads; 4 shell ear pins; 2 shell gorgets; 6 shell ornament fragments; and 1 split cane fragment.
From October to November of 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from site 1MS121 on Pine Island, in Marshall County, AL, after TVA
Although there is no absolute certainty that Native Americans of the Mississippian period are directly related to modern federally recognized Tribes, a relationship of shared group identity can reasonably be traced between these modern Tribes and the human remains and associated funerary objects of the earlier culture identified as Mississippian. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the cultural items from Mississippian and early historic occupations at 1JA27, 1JA28, 1MS100, and 1MS121 are culturally affiliated with Native Americans descendants of the Koasati/Kaskinampo. These descendants include the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushata Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Chronicles from Spanish explorers of the 16th century and French explorers of the 17th and 18th century indicate the presence of chiefdom level tribal entities in the southeastern United States which resemble the Mississippian chiefdoms. Linguistic analysis of place names noted by multiple Spanish explorers indicates that Koasati speaking groups inhabited northeastern Alabama. Early maps and research into the historic Native American occupation of northeastern Alabama indicates that the Koasati (as called by the English) or the Kaskinampo (as called by the French) were found at multiple sites in Jackson and Marshall Counties in the 17th and 18th centuries. Oral history, traditions, and expert opinions of the descendants of Koasati/Kaskinampo indicate that this portion of the Tennessee River valley was a homeland of their Tribe. The subsequent involuntary diaspora of these peoples resulted in descendants of the Koasati/Kaskinampo among multiple federally recognized Tribes.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 81 individuals of Native American ancestry due to their presence in a prehistoric and early historic archeological site and osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 32,456 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this notice and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
TVA is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, have completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (ASM). The human remains were removed from a location within the boundaries of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Navajo County, AZ.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the ASM professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from site AZ P:14:8(ASM) in Navajo County, AZ. Legally authorized excavations were conducted by the University of Arizona Archeological Field School under the direction of Michael Graves and Michael Faught. No human burials were reported at the time of the excavations. Following project completion, the archeological collections were brought to ASM. In 2017, ASM staff found fragmentary human remains in the repository collections. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
AZ P:14:8(ASM) is a small village site that included three masonry room blocks. The human remains discovered in 2017 were originally found in roof fall debris inside one of the rooms. Tree ring dates and ceramic typologies suggest that the primary occupation of the site was during the late A.D. 1200s. These characteristics are consistent with the archeologically-described Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo tradition.
A detailed discussion of the basis for cultural affiliation of archeological sites in the region where the above site is located may be found in “Cultural Affiliation Assessment of White Mountain Apache Tribal Lands (Fort Apache Indian Reservation),” by John R. Welch and T.J. Ferguson (2005). To summarize, archeologists have used the terms Upland Mogollon or prehistoric Western Pueblo to define the archeological complex represented by the site described above. Material culture characteristics of these traditions include a temporal progression from earlier pit houses to later masonry pueblos, villages organized in room blocks of contiguous dwellings associated with plazas, rectangular kivas, polished and paint-decorated ceramics, unpainted corrugated ceramics, inhumation burials, cradleboard cranial deformation, grooved stone axes, and bone artifacts. The combination of the material culture attributes and a subsistence pattern that included hunting and gathering augmented by maize agriculture helps to identify an earlier group. Archeologists have also remarked that there are strong similarities between this earlier group and present-day tribes included in the Western Pueblo ethnographic group, especially the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. The similarities in ceramic traditions, burial practices, architectural forms, and settlement patterns have led archeologists to believe that the prehistoric inhabitants of the Mogollon Rim region migrated north and west to the Hopi mesas, and north and east to the Zuni River Valley. Certain objects found in Upland Mogollon archeological sites have been found to have strong resemblances with ritual paraphernalia that are used in continuing religious practices by the Hopi and Zuni. Some petroglyphs on the Fort Apache Reservation have also persuaded archeologists of continuities between the earlier identified group and current-day Western Pueblo people. Biological information from AZ P:14:1(ASM), a site located close to AZ P:14:8(ASM), supports the view that the prehistoric occupants of the Upland Mogollon region had migrated from various locations to the north and west of the region.
Hopi and Zuni oral traditions parallel the archeological evidence for migration. Migration figures prominently in Hopi oral tradition, which refers to the ancient sites, pottery, stone tools, petroglyphs, and other artifacts left behind by the ancestors as “Hopi Footprints.” This migration history is complex and detailed, and includes traditions relating specific clans to the Mogollon region. Hopi cultural advisors have also identified medicinal and culinary plants at archeological sites in the region. Their knowledge about these plants was passed down to them from the ancestors who inhabited these ancient sites. Migration is also an important attribute of Zuni oral tradition and includes accounts of Zuni ancestors passing through the Upland Mogollon region. The ancient villages mark the routes of these migrations. Zuni cultural advisors remark that the ancient sites were not abandoned. People returned to these places from time to time, either to reoccupy them or for religious pilgrimages—a practice that has continued to the present day. Archeologists have found ceramic evidence at shrines in the Upland Mogollon region that confirms these reports. Zuni cultural advisors have names for plants endemic to the Mogollon region that do not grow on the Zuni Reservation. They also have knowledge about traditional medicinal and ceremonial uses for these resources, which has been passed down to them from their ancestors. Furthermore, Hopi and Zuni cultural advisors have recognized that their ancestors may have been co-resident at some of the sites in this region during their ancestral migrations.
There are differing points of view regarding the possible presence of Apache people in the Upland Mogollon region during the time that AZ P:14:8(ASM) was occupied. Some Apache traditions describe interactions with Ancestral Pueblo people during this time, but according to these stories, Puebloan people and Apache people were regarded as having separate identities. The White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, does not claim cultural affiliation with the human remains and associated funerary objects from this site. As reported by Welch and Ferguson (2005), consultations between the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; and White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, have indicated that none of these tribes wish to pursue claims of affiliation with sites on White Mountain Apache Tribal lands. Finally, the White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, supports the repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects from this site and is ready to assist the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, in their reburial.
Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Arizona State Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, NAGPRA Coordinator, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The Arizona State Museum is responsible for notifying the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, (Alaska Region USFWS), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, including Alaska Native Tribes, not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Alaska Region USFWS. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Alaska Region USFWS at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Edward J. DeCleva, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 786-3399, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Alaska Region USFWS. The human remains and associated funerary objects were recovered from two sites on Kodiak Island, AK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Alaska Region USFWS professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository of Kodiak, Alaska, a NAGPRA representative on Kodiak Island designated by the Kaguyak Village, Native Village of Afognak, Native Village of Akhiok, Native Village of Larsen Bay, Native Village of Ouzinkie, Native Village of Port Lions, Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak (previously listed as the Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak), Tangirnaq Native Village (formerly Lesnoi Village (aka Woody Island)), and the Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor (previously listed as Native Village of Old Harbor and Village of Old Harbor).
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from the Younger Kiavak site 418, Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) site number 049-KOD-00099, Kodiak Island, AK. There are eight numbered burials and these burials contain nine of the individuals. The human remains include three possible females, two possible males, and eight individuals of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 31 associated funerary objects include 3 wood samples, 1 soil sample, 1 sulfide mineral, 2 projectile points, 1 bone labret, 4 ulu blades, 2 spear prongs, 3 modified mammal bone, 1 unmodified bone, 1 metal hammerhead, 1 metal spoon, 1 lot of metal fragments, 1 u-notched stone, 1 bone socket piece, 1 groundstone scrap, 1 stone scrap, 1 lot of prehistoric pottery sherds, 1 glass bottle stopper, 1 chipped stone, 1 mammal tooth, 1 polishing stone, and 1 abrasive stone.
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were removed from the Old Kiavak site 419, AHRS site number 049-KOD-00100, Kodiak Island, AK. The human remains include 2 adult individuals of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
As part of the Aleut-Konyag project conducted by the University of Wisconsin Madison, excavations took place at several sites on Kodiak Island. Two of the sites, Old and Younger Kiavak, are located on the southeastern coast of Kodiak Island, south of the mouth of the lagoon at the head of Kiavak Bay. The Younger Kiavak site, originally tested and reported by Aleš Hrdlička in 1944, contained several eroding burials, glass beads, stone lamps, and unspecified artifacts. During the 1963 excavation, Donald Clark notes that the site revealed sparse evidence of historic occupation, although numerous trade goods accompanied a shallow burial.
The Old Kiavak site is located adjacent to the Younger Kiavak site. Two trenches were excavated in the main mounded portion of the site and a small test trench was excavated in the lower secondary portion of the site. Three components were identified that included the Old Kiavak phase (1678-407 B.C) of the Kachemak tradition, the Early Koniag Tradition (to A.D. 1040), and an historic period occupation (circa A.D. 1900).
The collection was curated and stored at the University of Wisconsin-Madison until 2006. The U.S. Army Corps of
Officials of the Alaska Region USFWS have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 31 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor (previously listed as Native Village of Old Harbor and Village of Old Harbor).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Alaska Native Tribe not identified in this notice that wishes to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Edward DeCleva, Regional Historic Preservation Officer/Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99013, telephone (907) 786-3399, email
The Alaska Region USFWS is responsible for notifying the Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor (previously listed as Native Village of Old Harbor and Village of Old Harbor) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian Tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day federally recognized Indian Tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the federally recognized Indian Tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by October 5, 2017.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from archeological sites in Jackson and Marshal Counties, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
The sites listed in this notice were excavated as part of TVA's Guntersville Reservoir project by the Alabama Museum of Natural History (AMNH) at the University of Alabama, using labor and funds provided by the Works Progress Administration. Details regarding these excavations and sites may be found in a report, “An Archaeological Survey of Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama,” by William S. Webb and Charles G. Wilder. The human remains and associated funerary objects excavated from the sites listed in this notice have been in the physical custody of the AMNH at the University of Alabama since excavation, but are under the control of TVA.
From March to April of 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 37 individuals were removed from the Hardin site (1JA27) in Jackson County, AL, after TVA acquired the site on October 16, 1936. Excavations revealed two occupations, including Late Woodland Flint River phase (A.D. 500-1000) and Mississippian Henry Island phase (A.D. 1200-1450). The human remains include adults, juveniles, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From January to June of 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 158 individuals were removed from the Saulty and Riley site (1JA28) in Jackson County, AL, after TVA purchased the site on October 16, 1936. Site 1JA28 was composed of both a village and adjacent mound, with Woodland (Flint River phase) and Mississippian (Henry Island
From September of 1938 to January of 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 84 individuals were removed from the Laws site (1MS100) on Pine Island in Marshall County, AL, after TVA purchased the land on April 21, 1937. Excavations began at the levee adjacent to the river and proceeded by both vertical slicing and horizontal excavations. There appear to have been at least four occupations at this site, including a pre-ceramic period with steatite vessels; a village using limestone-tempered pottery during the Flint River phase (A.D. 500-1000); a late Mississippian occupation using shell-tempered ceramics and rectilinear wall trench structures (Crow Creek phase, A.D. 1500-1700); and burials with Euro-American trade goods circa A.D. 1670-1715. The human remains include adults, juveniles and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 249 associated funerary objects include 1 bone awl; 1 canine bone; 2 pieces of fired clay; 1 graphite nodule; 1 modified bone; 241 shell beads; 1 shell ear plug; and 1 shell pendant.
From October to November of 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from site 1MS121 on Pine Island in Marshall County, AL, after TVA purchased the site on April 19, 1937. There were excavations in both the village and adjacent mound. There are no radiocarbon dates for this site. Artifacts recovered from the site indicate both a Woodland and Mississippian occupation. The human remains include adults, juveniles and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed was not the tribal land of any federally recognized Indian tribe. On May 2, 2017, TVA consulted with all federally recognized Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. These tribes are the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. After further consultation, TVA has decided to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological sites and osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 290 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 4,960 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(i), at the time of excavation of the human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the cultural items were removed was not the tribal land of any federally recognized Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the following tribes are aboriginal to the area from which the cultural items were excavated: The Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. None of these tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), TVA has decided to transfer control of the culturally unidentifiable associated funerary objects to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
TVA is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation on August 29, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wi-fi enabled electronic devices and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Hisense Co., Ltd. of China; Hisense Electric, Co. Ltd. of China; Hisense International (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong; Hisense USA Corporation of Suwanee, GA; Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corporation of Suwanee, GA; Hisense USA Multimedia R & D Center, Inc. of Suwanee, GA; and Hisense Inc. of Huntington Beach, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3246”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a meeting on October 26-27, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
October 26, 2017—1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; October 27, 2017—8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Boston College School of Law, 885 Centre Street, Newton Centre, MA 02459.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Curtis-Strauss LLC as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes available on September 5, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Curtis-Strauss LLC (CSL) as a NRTL. CSL's expansion covers the addition of five test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSL submitted an application, dated December 30, 2016, (OSHA-2009-0026-0073) to expand its recognition to include five additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSL's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to CSL's application, go to:
OSHA staff examined CSL's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CSL's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSL's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. CSL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CSL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CSL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSL, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, September 19 and 20, 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will convene a forum titled
Below is the preliminary agenda.
The forum will be held in the NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center, located at 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC. The public can view the forum in person or via live webcast at
Individuals requiring reasonable accommodation and/or wheelchair access directions should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of one amendment request. The amendment request is for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3. The NRC proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Because the amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation.
Comments must be filed by October 5, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by November 6, 2017. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0179, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0179, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notice of an amendment containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments add a reference to TVA letter, CNL-17-024, dated June 7, 2017, to the RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, “Transition License Conditions,” items 2 and 3. The changes to the modifications referenced by Transition License Conditions, items 2 and 3, in the proposed license amendment request the following actions: (1) Clarify the description related to a drywell pressure modification (Table S-2, Modifications 52a and 52b) to match the design changes that are being implemented; (2) delete a modification (Table S-2, Modification 84) that would have allowed for manual recovery of the offsite power circuits that is no longer needed from a risk perspective (
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accidents initiators or precursors. In addition, the proposed changes do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility, nor do they alter the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not affect the ability of structures, systems, and components to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The risk sensitivity analysis performed shows that no significant increase in accident consequence is involved.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments add a reference to TVA letter, CNL-17-024, dated June 7, 2017, to the RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, “Transition License Conditions,” items 2 and 3. The changes to the modifications referenced by Transition License Conditions, items 2 and 3, in the proposed license amendment request the following actions: (1) Clarify the description related to a drywell pressure modification (Table S-2, Modifications 52a and 52b) to match the
The proposed changes will not result in any new or different kinds of accidents from that previously evaluated because they do not change any precursors or equipment that was previously credited for accident mitigation.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments add a reference to TVA letter, CNL-17-024, dated June 7, 2017, to the RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, “Transition License Conditions,” items 2 and 3. The changes to the modifications referenced by Transition License Conditions, items 2 and 3, in the proposed license amendment request the following actions: (1) Clarify the description related to a drywell pressure modification (Table S-2, Modifications 52a and 52b) to match the design changes that are being implemented; (2) delete a modification (Table S-2, Modification 84) that would have allowed for manual recovery of the offsite power circuits that is no longer needed from a risk perspective (
The proposed changes will not result in any new or different kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because they do not change any precursors or equipment that was previously credited for accident mitigation.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for reinstatement.
This notice offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR) for USAJOBS.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 5, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Chief Information Officer, Employee Services IT PMO, USAJOBS, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still or send them via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Chief Information Officer, Employee Services IT PMO, USAJOBS, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: John Still, 202-606-1275, or by sending a request via electronic mail to
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
USAJOBS is the Federal Government's centralized source for most Federal jobs and employment information, including both positions that are required by law to be posted at that location and positions that can be posted there at an agency's discretion. The Applicant Profile and Resume Builder are two components of the USAJOBS application system. USAJOBS reflects the minimal critical elements collected across the Federal Government to begin an application for Federal jobs under the authority of sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of title 5, United States Code. This revision proposes to a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(i) to permit the Exchange to calculate a derived price for use in the Opening Cross Price Test A when a security is the subject of a corporate action.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(i) to permit the Exchange to calculate a derived price for use in the Opening Cross Price Test A when a security is the subject of a corporate action. The Opening Price Tests are designed to avoid mispriced Opening Crosses, and the use of the clearly erroneous post-trade nullification process, by ensuring that the price established by the Opening Cross is reasonably related to the market and not the product of erroneous order entry. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will promote a more efficient Opening Cross by allowing the Exchange to base its Opening Price Tests on prices that are indicative of the value of the security after a corporate action.
Nasdaq's Opening Cross provides an industry-leading, transparent auction process that determines a single price for the opening. Rule 4752(d)(2)(F) describes the Exchange's price protection for the Opening Cross. Once a security has an Opening Cross price set based on the process described in
Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(i),
Pursuant to Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(ii), the Opening Cross price range for Test B is established by adding and subtracting the Opening Cross Price Test B threshold from the Nasdaq last sale (either round or odd lot) after 9:15 a.m. ET but prior to the Opening Cross. If the Nasdaq Opening Cross price is higher or lower than the Opening Cross price range established by this subparagraph or if there is no Nasdaq last sale, Opening Cross Price Test C is performed. Pursuant to Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(iii), the Opening Cross price range for Test C is established by adding to and subtracting the Opening Cross Price Test C threshold from the Nasdaq best bid (for Opening Cross prices that would be higher than the closing price used for Opening Price Test A) or Nasdaq best offer (for Opening Cross prices that would be lower than the closing price used for Opening Price Test A). For purposes of this test, if a security does not have a Nasdaq Official Closing Price or consolidated closing price, as applicable, for the previous trading day Nasdaq will use a price of $0. If the Nasdaq Opening Cross price is higher or lower than the Opening Cross price range established by Opening Price Test C all Orders in the Opening Cross will be cancelled back to Participants, no Opening Cross will occur, and the security will open for regular market hours trading pursuant to Rule 4752(c).
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 4752(d)(2)(F)(i) to permit the Exchange to calculate a derived price for use in the Opening Cross Price Test A when a security is the subject of a corporate action where the Exchange can calculate a derived price based on the terms of the corporate action.
Currently, for standard corporate actions (
In addition, securities traded on Nasdaq are infrequently subject to non-standard corporate actions that involve, for instance, a second class of shares with slightly different terms, such as a class of shares with different voting rights. An example of such a corporate action was the Google transaction in 2014 where owners of Google Class A stock received one share of Class C non-voting stock for every share of Class A stock held. Currently, the Exchange does not perform a similar adjustment for non-standard corporate actions. The Exchange believes, however, that it is appropriate to calculate a derived price in these situations too.
Importantly, in cases of non-standard corporate actions, if the Exchange does not have the flexibility to adjust the stock price such securities may fail the Exchange's Opening Cross Price Tests on the day following the corporate action. In particular, today, if a security is subject to a non-standard corporate action where a new class of security is issued, it is guaranteed to fail Opening Price Test A due to the lack of appropriate closing prices on which to base that test. In addition, such securities may fail Opening Price Test B if there is no pre-market trading after 9:15 a.m. ET to establish a last sale price, and may fail Opening Price Test
The Google transaction described above pre-dates the Opening Price Tests, which Nasdaq adopted in 2016.
The Exchange therefore proposes to amend its rules to allow it to calculate its Opening Price Test A for non-standard corporate actions by using a derived price calculated based on the terms of the corporate action, similar to the process described above for standard corporate actions today. This process will be used only for corporate actions where, similar to the Google transaction described above, the Exchange can calculate a derived price based on the terms of the corporate action. As previously discussed, the Exchange will initially use this authority only for non-standard corporate actions that involve the issuance of a new class of securities with similar terms; provided that if the Exchange determines that it is capable of calculating a derived price for other non-standard corporate actions it will issue an Equity Trader Alert to inform members of the types of corporate actions where it will use derived prices. Thus, for example, assume a Nasdaq listed security (Class A) is issuing a dividend of 2 shares of a new class of stock (Class C). If the Class A stock is trading at a price of $120 prior to the corporate action, the Exchange could derive a price for each share of Class A and new Class C stock that is $40 per share (
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the Exchange to calculate a derived price for use in the Opening Cross Price Test A when a security is the subject of a non-standard corporate action. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of trade by increasing transparency around the Exchange's current process for adjusting the prices used in Opening Cross Price Test A for securities that are subject to vanilla corporate actions. The Opening Cross provides an industry-leading, transparent price discovery process that aggregates a large pool of liquidity, across a variety of order types, in a single venue. Today, the Exchange may not be able to execute a successful Opening Cross for a security that is subject to a non-standard corporate action, as the prices used to compute the Opening Cross price ranges do not reflect the actual value of the security after the completion of the corporate action. Furthermore, in cases where a new class of securities is issued, there may be no applicable closing and/or last sale prices for the new class of securities to use to calculate the applicable Opening Cross price ranges. The proposed rule change would remedy this by allowing the Exchange to calculate an appropriate derived price to use for Opening Price Test A. The Exchange believes that this change will increase the likelihood that Nasdaq can execute a successful Opening Cross following a non-standard corporate action, and thereby promotes just and equitable principles of trade and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is designed to increase the likelihood that the Exchange can execute a successful Opening Cross in securities that are subject to a corporate action, and is not intended to have any significant impact on competition. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is evidence of the strong competition in the equities industry, where exchanges must continually improve their offerings to stay competitive.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series and Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series under the Academy Funds Trust, under Rule 14.11(c)(3) (“Index Fund Shares”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of each series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 ETF (collectively, the “Shield Funds”) and Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 ETF (collectively, the “Ultra Shield Funds”) (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) under Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares on the Exchange. In total, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade Shares of twelve monthly series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series and twelve monthly series of the Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series. Each Fund will be an index-based exchange traded fund (“ETF”).
The Shares will be offered by Academy Funds Trust (the “Trust”), which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on October 17, 2007. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an investment company and has filed a registration statement on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission on behalf of the Funds.
Each Shield Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective index (the “Shield Index”). Each Ultra Shield Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees and
The Indexes employ a “defined outcome strategy” that seeks to provide investment returns that deliver one-to-one exposure to any gains of the S&P 500 Price Return Index (“S&P 500”), up to a capped amount, while protecting investors from S&P 500 losses of up to a capped amount, as further described below. The Indexes will be composed exclusively of FLexible EXchange Options (“FLEX Options”) linked to the S&P 500. Defined outcome strategies are designed to participate in market gains and losses within pre-determined ranges over a specified period (
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Indexes do not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.”
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under Rule 14.11(c), except that the Indexes will not meet the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e) in that the Indexes will consist of options based on U.S. Component Stocks (
Under Normal Market Conditions,
Defined outcome strategies are designed to participate in market gains and losses within pre-determined ranges over a specified period (
The FLEX Options comprising the Shield Indexes will first be entered into on approximately the date of the Shield Fund's inception and will automatically reset on approximately the one year anniversary thereafter (each, an “outcome period”). These FLEX Options have been chosen to seek to provide investors, before fees and expenses, with the following outcomes:
•
•
•
These outcomes are sought through the effect of layering purchased and written FLEX Options that comprise the Shield Index. Any FLEX Options that are written by a Shield Fund pursuant to its respective Shield Index that create an obligation to sell or buy an asset will be offset with a position in FLEX Options purchased by the Shield Fund pursuant to the Shield Index to create the right to buy or sell the same asset such that the Shield Fund will always be in a net long position. That is, any obligations of a Shield Fund created by its writing of FLEX Options will be covered by offsetting positions in other purchased FLEX Options. As the FLEX Options mature at the end of each outcome period, they are replaced. By replacing FLEX Options annually, each Shield Index seeks to ensure that investments made in a given month during the current year buffer against negative returns of the S&P 500 up to pre-determined levels in that same month of the following year. The Shield Funds do not offer any protection against declines in the S&P 500 exceeding 15% on an annualized basis. Shareholders will bear all S&P 500 losses exceeding 15% on a one-to-one basis.
The value of the FLEX Options purchased by a Shield Fund in accordance with the Index on any given day will be reflected in the Shield Fund's net asset value (“NAV”). The FLEX Options owned by the Shield Funds will have the same terms (
Under Normal Market Conditions, each Ultra Shield Fund will attempt to achieve its investment objective of tracking, before fees and expenses, the performance of its respective Ultra Shield Index. Each Ultra Shield Index employs a “defined outcome strategy” that seeks to provide investment returns that deliver one to one exposure to any gains of the S&P 500, up to a capped amount, while protecting investors from S&P 500 losses of between 5% and 35%. Each Index will be composed exclusively of FLEX Options that reference the S&P 500.
Defined outcome strategies are designed to participate in market gains and losses within pre-determined ranges over a specified period (
The FLEX Options comprising the Ultra Shield Indexes will first be entered into on approximately the date of the Shield Fund's inception and will automatically reset on approximately the one year anniversary thereafter (each, an “outcome period”). These FLEX Options have been chosen to seek to provide investors, before fees and expenses, with the following outcomes:
•
•
•
•
These outcomes are sought through the effect of layering purchased and written FLEX Options that comprise an Ultra Shield Index. Any FLEX Options that are written by an Ultra Shield Fund pursuant to its respective Ultra Shield Index that create an obligation to sell or buy an asset will be offset with a position in FLEX Options purchased by the Ultra Shield Fund pursuant to the Ultra Shield Index to create the right to buy or sell the same asset such that the Ultra Shield Fund will always be in a net long position. That is, any obligations of an Ultra Shield Fund created by its writing of FLEX Options will be covered by offsetting positions in other purchased FLEX Options. As the FLEX Options mature at the end of each outcome period, they are replaced. By replacing FLEX Options annually, each Ultra Shield Index seeks to ensure that investments made in a given month during the current year buffer against negative returns of the S&P 500 up to pre-determined levels in that same month of the following year. The Ultra Shield Fund does not offer any protection against declines in the S&P 500 of less than 5% or exceeding 35% on an annualized basis thereafter. Shareholders will bear all S&P 500 losses less than 5% and exceeding 35% on a one-to-one basis.
The value of the FLEX Options purchased by the Ultra Shield Fund in accordance with the Index on any given day will be reflected in the Ultra Shield Fund's NAV. The FLEX Options owned by an Ultra Shield Fund will have the same terms (
Under Normal Market Conditions, each of the Funds will invest not less than 80% of its assets in the FLEX Options that comprise their respective Index. Each of the Funds may invest up to 20% of its net assets (in the aggregate) in other investments that are not included in the Fund's respective Index, but which the Adviser or Sub-Adviser believes will help the Fund to track its Index and that will be disclosed at the end of each trading day (“Other Assets”). Other Assets include only cash or cash equivalents, as defined in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii),
The market for options contracts on the S&P 500 traded on CBOE, including FLEX Options, is among the most liquid markets in the world [sic] S&P 500 FLEX Options are a subset of S&P 500 options traded on the CBOE.
FLEX Options on the S&P 500 are quoted by the same market makers that trade traditional options contracts. Every FLEX Option order submitted to CBOE is exposed to a competitive auction process for price discovery. The process begins with a request for quote (“RFQ”) in which the interested party establishes the terms of the FLEX Options contract. The RFQ solicits interested market participants, including on-floor market makers, remote market makers trading electronically, and member firm traders, to respond to the RFQ with bids or offers through a competitive process. This solicitation contains all of the contract specifications-underlying, size, type of option, expiration date, strike price, exercise style and settlement basis. During a specified amount of time, responses to the RFQ are received and at the end of that time period, the initiator can decide whether to accept the best bid or offer. The process occurs under the rules of CBOE which means that customer transactions are effected according to the principles of a fair and orderly market following trading procedures and policies developed by
The Exchange believes that sufficient protections are in place to protect against market manipulation of the Funds' Shares and FLEX Options on the S&P 500 for several reasons: (i) The liquidity in the market for options on the S&P 500; (ii) the competitive quoting process for FLEX Options; (iii) the diversity, liquidity, and market cap of the securities underlying the S&P 500; and (iv) surveillance by the Exchange, CBOE and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) designed to detect violations of the federal securities laws and self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) rules; [sic].
Trading in the Shares and the underlying investments will be subject to the federal securities laws and Exchange, CBOE and FINRA rules and surveillance programs.
As noted above, options on the S&P 500 are among the most liquid options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500 Index make securities that derive their value from the index less susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and liquidity of the S&P 500 components, price and quote transparency, and arbitrage opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the efficiency and liquidity of the markets for S&P 500 securities, options on the S&P 500, including FLEX Options, and other related derivatives are sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the Funds' Shares price. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in the Fund's Shares would present manipulation concerns.
The Exchange represents that, except as described above, the Funds will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(c) with the exception Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.” The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Funds will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Funds will trade on markets that are a member of Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed 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 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 in that the Shares of each Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX Rule 14.11(c) with the exception Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of “U.S. Component Stocks.” Specifically, Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) sets forth the requirements to be met by components of an index or portfolio of U.S. Component Stocks. Because the Index consists of FLEX Options, rather than “U.S. Component Stocks” as defined in Rule 14.11(c)(1)(D), the Index does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i).
Further, trading in the Shares and the underlying Fund investments will be subject to the federal securities laws and Exchange, CBOE and FINRA rules and surveillance programs.
As noted above, options on the S&P 500 are among the most liquid options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500 Index make securities that derive their value from the index less susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and liquidity of the S&P 500 components, price and quote transparency, and arbitrage opportunities.
The Exchange believes that the efficiency and liquidity of the markets for S&P 500 securities, options on the S&P 500, and other related derivatives are sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the Funds' Shares price. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in the Fund's Shares would present manipulation concerns.
The Exchange represents that, except as described above, the Funds will satisfy, on an initial and continued listing basis, all of the generic listing standards under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) and all other applicable requirements for Index Fund Shares under Rule 14.11(c). The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Funds will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such rules. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Funds will trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of Index Fund Shares that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 202.06 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to limit the issuance of material news by listed companies in the period immediately after the official closing time for the Exchange's trading session. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 202.06 of the Manual to limit the issuance of material news by listed companies in the period immediately after the official closing time for the Exchange's trading session.
Continuous trading on the Exchange ends at the Exchange's official closing time of 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (except that on certain days the official closing time occurs early at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time), which is when the Exchange stops accepting new orders, including orders designated for the closing auction, and requests to cancel orders.
The DMM-facilitated closing process is manual, however, a DMM can choose to automate the process.
Because there is trading after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on other exchange and non-exchange venues, if a listed company releases material news immediately after 4:00 p.m., but before the closing auction on the NYSE is completed, there can be a significant price difference in nearly contemporaneous trades on other markets and the closing price on the Exchange.
Notwithstanding this advisory text, the Exchange has continued to experience situations where material news released shortly after 4:00 p.m. has caused significant investor confusion. Specifically, when a listed company releases material news shortly after 4:00 p.m., but before the DMM has been able to complete the closing auction, the news release can cause the company's stock to trade on other markets at materially different prices than the price of the NYSE's closing auction.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Section 202.06 to prohibit listed companies from issuing material news after the official closing time for the Exchange's trading session until the earlier of publication of such company's official closing price on the Exchange or five minutes after the official closing time. In the Exchange's experience, DMMs are able to complete the closing auctions for the securities assigned to a DMM in almost all cases within five minutes of the Exchange's official closing time, so the proposed amendment utilizes that timeframe as it would make it unlikely that a listed company would ever issue material news between the official closing time and the completion of the closing auction.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is not to affect competition, but rather to ensure that participants in the closing auction at the Exchange do not have their trades executed at a price that is inconsistent with contemporaneous trading prices on other markets that reflect material news that was released after the NYSE's official closing time. Therefore, the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of delegation of authority.
This document provides the public with notice of the delegation of authority for certain activities related to the licensing of small business investment companies by the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to the Agency Licensing Committee.
Carol Fendler, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205-7559 or
This document provides the public with notice of the Administrator's delegation of authority to the Agency Licensing Committee to review and recommend to the Administrator for approval applications for licenses to operate as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended.
This delegation of authority reads as follows:
Pursuant to the authority vested in me pursuant to section 301 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, the authority to take any and all actions necessary to review applications for licensing under section 301 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and to recommend to the Administrator which such applications should be approved is delegated to the Agency Licensing Committee.
The Agency Licensing Committee shall be composed of the following members:
This authority revokes all other authorities granted by the Administrator to recommend and approve applications for a license to operate as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended. This authority may not be re-delegated; however, in the event that the person serving in one of the positions listed as a member of the Agency Licensing Committee is absent from the office, as defined in SBA Standard Operating Procedure 00 01 2, Chapter 3, paragraph 2, or is unable to perform the functions and duties of his or her position, the individual serving in an acting capacity, pursuant to a written and established line of succession, may serve on the Committee during such absence or inability. In addition, if one of the positions listed as a member of the Agency Licensing Committee is vacant, the individual serving in that position in an acting capacity shall serve on the Agency Licensing Committee. This authority will remain in effect until revoked in writing by the Administrator or by operation of law.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to November 6, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents to Sydney Taylor, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
This electronic collection records medical information necessary to determine whether visa applicants have medical conditions affecting the applicant's eligibility for a visa.
Approved panel physicians will be granted access to an eMedical system by the Department of State, to conduct medical examinations for visa eligibility determinations. During the initial rollout, some immigrant visa applicants with a completed and submitted DS-260, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration will have their medical exam results submitted to the Department via the eMedical system. The panel physician will input the exam information into the eMedical portal and it will be transmitted to the Department for visa adjudication and retained in the Department's systems. The Department anticipates a full rollout of the electronic medical report by the end of 2018. During the transition to eMedical, some applicants' medical exams will be completed via paper forms.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for comments; correction.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) published a document in the
For procedural questions concerning written comments or participating in the public hearing, contact Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475. Direct all other questions regarding this notice to Betsy Hafner, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Russia and Eurasia, at (202) 395-9124.
September 22, 2017: Deadline for filing a summary of testimony and requests to appear at the October 10, 2017 public hearing, and for submitting public comments. October 10, 2017: The TPSC will convene a public hearing on Russia's implementation of its obligations as a member of the WTO at 9:30 a.m. in Rooms 1 & 2, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20508.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Community Reinvestment Act Regulations.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0160, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
The OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the following collection:
Each agency must provide written CRA performance evaluations (CRA PE) of the institutions they supervise. The CRA PEs are disclosed to the public. The public portion of each written CRA PE must present the agency's conclusions with respect to the CRA performance standards identified in its regulations; including the facts and data supporting those conclusions; and contain the institution's CRA rating and the basis for that rating.
The reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements in the CRA regulations are necessary, as they provide the Agencies with the information they need to examine, assess, and assign ratings reflecting institutions' CRA performance and to prepare the public section of the CRA PE.
The OCC's CRA regulation, 12 CFR 25, applies to national banks, including federal branches, as those are defined in 12 CFR 28, with federally insured deposits, except as provided in 12 CFR 25.11, (collectively, banks). Similarly, the OCC's CRA regulation, 12 CFR 195, applies to savings associations, except as provided in 12 CFR 195.11.
12 CFR 25.25(b) and 195.25(b) provide that requests for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank or savings association must be made in writing with the OCC at least three months prior to the proposed effective date of the designation.
12 CFR 25.27 and 195.27 provide for optional submission of strategic plans to the OCC for approval. If the requirements of 12 CFR 25.27(a) or 195.27(a), respectively, are met, institutions' records of helping to meet the credit needs of their assessment areas will be assessed under their approved strategic plans.
12 CFR 25.42(a) and 195.42(a) require that large banks and savings associations
12 CFR 25.42(b)(2) and 195.42(b)(2) require that large banks and savings associations report annually in machine readable form the aggregate number and aggregate amount of community development loans originated or purchased.
12 CFR 25.42(b)(3) and 195.42(b)(3) require that large banks and savings associations, if subject to reporting under 12 CFR 1003 (Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)), must report the location of each home mortgage loan application, origination, or purchase outside the metropolitan statistical area(s) in which the bank or savings association has a home/branch office, and the location of each home mortgage loan application, origination, or purchase outside any metropolitan statistical area, in accordance with the requirements of Regulation C.
12 CFR 25.42(c)(1) and 195.42(c)(1) provide that all banks and savings associations may collect and maintain in machine readable form certain data for consumer loans originated or purchased by a bank or savings association for consideration under the lending test. Under 12 CFR 25.42(c)(2) and 195.42(c)(2), all banks and saving associations may include other information concerning their lending performance, including additional loan distribution data.
12 CFR 25.42(d) and 195.42(d) provide that banks and savings associations that elect to have the OCC consider loans by an affiliate, for purposes of the lending or community development test or an approved strategic plan, shall collect, maintain, and report the data that the bank or savings association would have collected, maintained, and reported pursuant to 12 CFR 25.42(a)-(c) or 195.42(a)-(c), respectively, had the loans been originated or purchased by the bank or savings association. For home mortgage loans, the bank or savings association must also be prepared to identify the home mortgage loans reported under HMDA by the affiliate.
12 CFR 25.42(e) and 195.42(e) provide that banks and savings associations that elect to have the OCC consider community development loans by a consortium or a third party, for purposes of the lending or community development tests or an approved strategic plan, must report for those loans the data that the bank or savings association would have reported under 12 CFR 25.42(b)(2) or 195.42(b)(2), respectively, had the loans been
12 CFR 25.42(g) and 195.42(g) require that banks and savings associations, except those that were a small bank or small savings association
12 CFR 25.43 and 195.43 generally require that all banks and savings associations maintain a public file that contains: All written comments and responses; a copy of the public section of the bank's or savings association's most recent CRA performance evaluation; a list of the bank's or savings association's branches; a list of the branches opened or closed; a list of services offered; and a map of each assessment area delineated by the bank or savings association under 12 CFR 25.41 or 195.41, respectively. Certain banks and savings associations must include: A copy of their approved strategic plan and a description of the current efforts to improve their performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its entire community. Certain large banks and savings associations must include in their public files (for prior two years): Consumer loan data; CRA Disclosure Statements; and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Disclosure Statements. Small banks and savings associations must include their loan-to-deposit ratio for each quarter of the prior calendar year and, at their option, additional data on its loan-to-deposit ratio.
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment regarding this collection on June 5, 2017, 82 FR 25911. One comment was received from an institution.
The commenter focused its comments on 12 CFR 25.43 and 195.43, which require that all banks and savings associations maintain a public file. The commenter believed that removing the requirements for a copy of the public section of the most recent CRA evaluation and CRA and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Disclosure Statements would enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and minimize the burden of the collection on respondents. The commenter stated that CRA Performance Evaluations are readily available through the Web sites of the respective regulators completing the evaluations and CRA and HMDA Disclosure Statements (often thousands of pages) are available to both regulators and consumers through the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Web site. The commenter supported the remaining Public File requirements.
In response to these comments, the OCC notes that the Federal banking agencies have opined that a bank or savings association may keep all or a part of CRA public file information, including the public section of its CRA evaluation and CRA and HMDA Disclosure Statements, on an intranet or the Internet provided that all of the required information set forth in 12 CFR 25.43 is made available in either in paper or electronic form.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Disclosure Requirements Associated with Supplementary Leverage Ratio.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 5, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0322, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0322, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
The OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the following information collection:
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment regarding this collection on June 5, 2017, 82 FR 25916. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Fair Housing Home Loan Data System Regulation.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0159, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0159, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
The OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the following information collection:
The OCC uses the data to determine whether an institution treated applicants consistently and made credit decisions commensurate with the applicants' qualifications and in compliance with ECOA and CCPA.
The information collection requirements are as follows:
• 12 CFR 27.3(a) requires national banks that are required to collect data on home loans under 12 CFR part 203
• 12 CFR 27.3(b) lists the information national banks shall attempt to obtain from an applicant as part of a home loan application and sets forth the information that banks must disclose to an applicant.
• 12 CFR 27.3(c) sets forth additional information national banks must maintain in the loan file.
• 12 CFR 27.4 states that the OCC may require a national bank to maintain a Fair Housing Inquiry/Application Log found in Appendix III to part 27 if there is reason to believe that the bank is engaging in discriminatory practices or if analysis of the data compiled by the bank under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2801
• 12 CFR 27.5 requires a national bank to maintain the information required by § 27.3 for 25 months after the bank notifies the applicant of action taken on an application or after withdrawal of an application.
• 12 CFR 27.7 requires a national bank to submit the information required by §§ 27.3(a) and 27.4 to the OCC upon its request prior to a scheduled examination using the Monthly Home Loan Activity Format form in Appendix I to part 27 and the Home Loan Data Form in Appendix IV to part 27. Section 27.7(c)(3) states that a bank with fewer than 75 home loan applications in the preceding year will not be required to submit such forms unless the home loan activity is concentrated in the few months preceding the request for data, indicating the likelihood of increased activity over the subsequent year or there is cause to believe that a bank is not in compliance with the fair housing laws based on prior examinations and/or complaints, among other factors.
• Section 27.7(d) provides that if there is cause to believe that a bank is in noncompliance with fair housing laws, the Comptroller may require submission of additional Home Loan Data Submission Forms. The Comptroller may also require submission of the information maintained under § 27.3(a) and Home Loan Data Submission Forms at more frequent intervals.
OCC-regulated institutions now have access to a CFPB-developed web-based data submission and edit-check system (the HMDA Platform) that may be used to process HMDA data. Some institutions, typically those with small volumes of reported loans or those who do not use a vendor or other software to prepare their HMDA data for submission, will still need a software solution for integrating HMDA data from paper records or electronic systems. Therefore, the CFPB created a prototype “LAR Formatting Tool” which will allow financial institutions with small volumes of reported loans, or those who do not use a vendor or other software to prepare their HMDA data for submission, to enter HMDA data and to create a pipe delimited text file to upload to the HMDA Platform. The institution can then proceed through the interactive Web pages of the HMDA Platform to process HMDA data.
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment regarding this collection on June 5, 2017, 82 FR 25917. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
The OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Basel II Interagency Supervisory Guidance for the Supervisory Review Process (Pillar 2).” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by October 5, 2017.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0242, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0242, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
The OCC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of this collection.
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment on June 7, 2017, 82 FR 26569. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's burden estimates, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
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 |